Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)

I am addressing these motions on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Kelly, who is chairing a committee at this time. As we debate these motions we cannot be blind to their history, and our thoughts are with the families of the victims of the Omagh bombing and all those who are victims of organised crime and terrorism. It is important to stress the motions are not about the Special Criminal Court or renewing or confirming the existence of that court, which has been in place since 1972. These motions relate to the need for the annual renewal of changes made to the Offences Against the State Act in 1998 and the continuation of section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009.

Over the years, the Labour Party has made clear its view on the need to make changes to these provisions. First, there should be no need for an annual vote on some of these provisions. Rather, these should part of our permanent criminal code. For example, the offence of directing an unlawful criminal organisation should be a crime rather than being regarded as an emergency provision. Withholding information about the commission of a crime should also be a permanent offence. The report of Mr. Justice Michael Peart's review group confirms the position adopted by the Labour Party. It is frustrating that the core recommendations have not yet been acted on.

It is long past time for the Department to extract from the 1998 Act and this annual renewal process the provisions of the Act that are used in practice that are effective and should really be enacted in permanent form. The core recommendation endorsed by the Peart review in 2023 was, as we are all aware, also made much earlier, in 2002 in the Hederman review. The Oireachtas was called upon to repeal the existing Acts and replace them with a single consolidated item of legislation containing significant reforms. The Peart review's minority report went further and recommended the abolition of the Special Criminal Court. The majority report supported its retention but also recommended, as do we in the Labour Party, that there should be no blanket referral of offences to a non-jury court and that, instead, the DPP should use the power it already has to decide on a case-by-case basis whether there is a sufficient threat to the administration of justice to justify sending a particular trial to that non-jury court. Page 12 of the report states:

The current system of “scheduled offences”, under which certain offences are automatically or presumptively tried by a non-jury court, should be abolished. Instead, the decision as to whether a non-jury court is used should, in every instance, be based on an assessment of the circumstances pertaining to the particular case.

The offence would remain in place and be triable in the ordinary way and the DPP would retain its discretion to transfer any particular trial to the Special Criminal Court. The review group also recommended many other reforms and safeguards, including the repeal of many outdated provisions and offences.

The Labour Party has also in the past raised the absence of sufficient information to support an informed finding as to the adequacy or otherwise of the ordinary courts to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order in relation to offences under the Act.

Every year, the Dáil and the Seanad are asked to declare that the ordinary criminal courts are inadequate, and that our treasured and highly valued principle of jury trial is somehow not fit to deal with particular offences. This decision should be based on more evidence than we have ever been provided with when asked to make this declaration. In particular, we have not been given any information as to the adequacy of the criminal courts or the risk of corruption or intimidation of jurors. As we said in our Labour Party manifesto, we need to ensure non-jury trials are the exception and introduce measures to address concerns about jury tampering or intimidation. Modern technology should also be considered in the implementation of reforms. It is welcome that the Minister for justice has committed to acting on the recommendations of the majority report of the independent review of the Offences against the State Acts. The Labour Party will be supporting the substantive motion and the Sinn Féin amendment and we hope to see legislative progress over the next 12 months. We also urge the Minister and the Department officials to carefully consider the proposals outlined in the minority report and how aspects can be incorporated into the proposals the Minister intends to bring forward, particularly on jury reform. The admission of belief evidence from a chief superintendent is a key provision in trials for the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation. The majority Peart report makes important recommendations, while the minority report urges an end to the use of this evidence.

In conclusion, the reason I bring this up is because of the serious concerns about firearms and An Garda Síochána related to a number of issues that have been raised by our justice spokesperson, Deputy Alan Kelly, over recent months. In particular, the case of Evan Fitzgerald has caused deep concern about the use of entrapment and how such operations are carried out. Based on the revelations from Deputy Kenny, and what Senator McDowell said in the Seanad yesterday, it is becoming clear that the judge in the case was misled by sworn Garda evidence. When we confer extraordinary powers on our police force and the courts, we must be assured that those powers are respected and not abused. The Minister cannot ignore what is now emerging if we want to maintain trust in An Garda Síochána and the courts process.

See this speech in context