Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)

I intend to speak about the Offences Against the State Act, in particular the continued operation of the Special Criminal Court. This is not just a matter of law. It is a question of principle, of how we, as a republic, administer justice in the most serious cases and of what kind of country we want to be by virtue of that fact. The Special Criminal Court was never meant to be permanent. It was introduced as an emergency measure during a time of deep national threat, a time when the State was under pressure from those who sought to undermine it through violence. Therefore, in response to that threat, we created a court that operated outside the ordinary rules of trial, with no jury, with belief evidence permitted and with cases tried before a panel of judges without the same level of public scrutiny.

That was more than 50 years ago. In 2025, the State is not in that kind of emergency. It is not on the brink of collapse. It is not at war. Yet, year after year, we continue to renew these extraordinary powers. This is not because we still face the same threat but because we have grown used to them. This is the real danger here: the slow normalisation of exceptional powers; the idea that we can keep these measures in place indefinitely and still call it emergency law; the belief that if we just renew them quietly enough, no one will ask why we still need them.

I heard what the Minister, Deputy O’Callaghan, said earlier. He said that reforms are on the way and that these things take time. I welcome that the Government is now acknowledging the need for change but I also want to be honest. If we are back in this Chamber in 12 months having the same debate, passing the same motion, extending the same powers, then people will rightly question whether reform is genuinely under way or whether it is just being kicked down the road once again. We have been here before. This is not the first time the case for reform has been made. There have now been two major independent reviews, one in 2002 and the other in 2023. Both recommended significant change and expressed concern about the long-term use of extraordinary courts, yet very little has changed.

We have also heard serious concerns from international observers. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, the former UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, has warned against the creeping expansion of emergency powers. Ireland has been asked again and again to explain why we continue to operate a non-jury court system on a permanent basis. No other EU country does so. Frankly, our explanations have begun to wear thin.

It is worth asking what it says about us as a republic that we continue to rely on a court system that most of our peers consider unacceptable in normal circumstances. Of course, some will say this is necessary, that the threats we face are too serious for the ordinary courts to manage, that organised crime poses too great a risk, that juries cannot be protected or that witnesses might be intimidated. To that, I would say that, yes, intimidation is real, gangland violence is serious and protecting those involved in criminal trials is essential. However, we are not the only country dealing with these threats and we are not the only state that has had to confront the problem of jury intimidation. Other democracies have managed it. They have introduced protected juror identities, created secure courtrooms, established robust witness protection schemes and provided the resources to ensure that their courts can function safely and fairly without abandoning the fundamental right to trial by jury.

That is the real issue here. This is not about distrusting juries. It is about not having confidence in the State to protect them. Every time we renew these powers, what we are really saying is that we do not believe the Irish State can guarantee safety to those who serve on juries and that we would rather bypass the challenge than rise to meet it. That is a failure of ambition, a failure of confidence in our own institutions and a failure to live up to the ideals we claim to hold. In a republic, justice is supposed to rest with the people. The jury trial is not just a legal mechanism. It is a civic act. It is an expression of public confidence in democracy. It is the belief that no matter how serious the charge, no matter how complicated the case, ordinary citizens can sit in judgment and deliver a verdict that is fair.

That principle is not outdated. It is not optional. It is at the heart of what it means to be a republic. When we say that certain people cannot be tried before a jury, we are not just making a technical legal decision. We are sending a message about how much we are willing to invest in our democracy. Right now, I believe we are selling that short.

I represent a community that knows what organised crime looks like. The inner city has seen too many lives lost to gangland violence, too many families destroyed by addiction and fear and too many young people pulled into criminal networks that promise protection but deliver only ruination. Therefore, I am not naive about the risks involved. However, I also know that those communities deserve justice that is not just swift but legitimate. People who are already living with injustice should not be asked to accept trials that take place outside the normal safeguards of the law.

A court that operates without a jury should be a last resort. It should be rare, it should be tightly limited and it should never become the default for dealing with certain types of crime simply because we have not invested enough in alternatives. That is the crossroads we are at now. The 2023 review offered a path forward. Some of its members argued for a return to jury trials with protections built in. That is not a utopian vision and it should never have been seen in that way. It is a workable, concrete reform, and one that aligns with international norms, our constitutional obligations and the values of the Republic. The Minister said that reform will take time but if we keep waiting, the opportunity will pass us by. The more years we spend renewing these powers, the harder it becomes to unwind them. The more normal they become, the more reluctant Governments will be to challenge them and the more distant we will grow from the original reasons they were introduced.

This is the moment to act. It is the moment to put in place the structures that make jury trials safe and sustainable, to invest in the systems that allow our courts to function with integrity, even under pressure, and to send a clear message that Ireland is not a fragile state clinging to old emergency powers, but a confident republic willing to uphold its own ideals. We should stop managing the risk of reform and start embracing the responsibility of it.

Let us be honest about what has happened here. The Special Criminal Court was created in a time of fear but fear is not a sound foundation for permanent law. The longer we keep it in place without challenge, the more we allow fear to shape the justice system in ways that are hard to undo. This should be the last year we stand in this Chamber and renew these powers without serious reform under way. Let us build a justice system that the Republic deserves. Let us trust ourselves to do better and let us show that, even in the face of real threat, we will not compromise on rights, fairness or the democratic values that should define us.

See this speech in context