Brian Stanley (Laois, Independent)

Here we go again. We are back here again to renew outdated legislation that has been there since the Second World War and that is long past its best-by date. It is very disappointing to see another year has passed by with no movement on it. While it has always been claimed that the legislation is there for the protection of the State, it has also been used for political policing on occasion, although not always. Reform has been demanded for years and Amnesty International, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and numerous others have highlighted the shortcomings of this legislation and how it can be misused. The Government put in place an expert panel in 2020 and this reported in 2023. The majority report of this panel recommended that the court should be abolished in its entirety and yet, two years later, here we are without any legislation having been brought forward by the Department or by the Government and without any credible alternative being put in place.

I can see the need for a non-jury court in extreme and exceptional circumstances but let us look at the provisions of the legislation, which have been changed slightly over the years. On the provision regarding failure to answer a material question, in the past, people have been threatened with being sent to the Special Criminal Court in Green Street if they did not answer a question and told there was a van waiting for them outside. That is what people were told on some occasions. Another provision relates to conduct of an accused person implying or leading to a reasonable inference that he or she is a member of an illegal organisation. That is wide open. Associations on the part of the accused are also mentioned. That could mean anything. It could mean being at the same wedding as somebody else. Section 9 of the 1998 Act creates an offence of withholding information the accused knows might be of assistance. Again, this is all subjective. There are a number of dangers in there.

Non-jury trials should only be used in the most exceptional circumstances. The recommendations of the review panel state that such a trial should not be authorised by one person, the DPP, as is currently the case, but rather it should be left to the judgment of a court. I recognise that there is a substantial degree of gang violence in the State and that this causes a serious threat to local communities, that it damages them and that it threatens people's safety. I understand that and it does need to be dealt with but other methods can be used. As I have said, a non-jury court should only be used where a court of law has decided it can be used. That decision should not be made by one person, the DPP. Methods such as courtroom screening and video evidence could also be used.

Here we are again in a state of absolute paralysis. I would support new legislation in this area. As we improve, reform and modernise the policing service in the North and in the South, this is a necessary step to take. I am extremely disappointed that we are doing this. This is my 15th time to be in the House for these motions. It is outdated and needs to be changed. This should be the very last time this happens.

See this speech in context