Ruairi Quinn (Dublin South East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 63: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason he has announced the establishment of a second division of the Special Criminal Court, especially in view of his statement on appointment as Minister that he wanted to see the gradual phasing out of the court and the maximization of jury trials in criminal cases; the number of cases currently awaiting hearing by the court; the average waiting time for trials and the way in which this compares with jury trials in criminal cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4946/05]

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Last December, I sought and received Government approval to establish an additional Special Criminal Court with seven members. My reasons for seeking the establishment of a second court are twofold. First, dissident republican groups continue to pose a serious, active threat to the State. I am determined to ensure that persons intent on challenging the legitimacy and authority of the State and charged in relation to criminal offences are brought swiftly to justice. In this context, the speedy resolution of trials before the Special Criminal Court will serve to demonstrate the State's resolve to deal seriously with any activity which is a threat to the State. I am also mindful of the need to avoid any difficulty or challenge arising on the basis that a person has been held on remand for a lengthy period pending trial.

There are five cases before the Special Criminal Court, dates have been assigned in respect of four cases and a date has yet to be assigned in respect of the fifth in which the book of evidence has yet to be served. The earliest date available for a new trial in the Special Criminal Court is October 2005. However, cases coming before the Special Criminal Court can be complex and lengthy and, with only one court available, even one or two extra cases can greatly increase delay.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Colm Maguire and the Director of Public Prosecutions, in a judgment handed down on 30 July 2004, confirmed that on an application for bail, the question of when a trial would take place is an admissible and important consideration and stated that a long-deferred trial might lead to bail being granted where it would otherwise be refused. The law was changed to allow evidence to be adduced against granting bail on the basis that the accused would be likely to avail of liberty to commit further serious offences. The gravamen decision of the Supreme Court was that the particular ground for objecting to bail had to be put to one side if the State was going to incarcerate people for lengthy periods prior to trial owing to the absence of a venue in which to try them. In those circumstances, I was left with a situation whereby people were effectively caught red-handed committing serious offences such as assembling bombs, operating training camps and preparing for major acts of terrorism on this island. The fact they were caught red-handed and appeared to be members of an unlawful organisation could not result in their being kept in custody pending their trial, despite the probability that their release would enable them to commit further serious offences that their organisation was dedicated to carrying out.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister made an amazing announcement on New Year's Eve with regard to the establishment of a second Special Criminal Court. The Special Criminal Court was set up under legislation in 1939 on the grounds that ordinary courts were not adequate to deal with the process of justice. The Minister has just told us that the main reason for its establishment is dissident republican groups and that therefore there is a backlog. Surely there is not more paramilitary activity now than in the thirty years of the Northern Ireland Troubles during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. The Minister is saying that dissident republican groups are causing so much concern that he must set up a second court. Of what do the five cases in the backlog consist? Are they are all related to paramilitary activity or are they non-scheduled cases which could equally be dealt with in the ordinary courts?

How does this tally with the Good Friday Agreement, when we, as co-sponsors, agreed to review our special legislation, including the Special Criminal Court, with a view to its dismantlement? The British authorities have already dismantled the Diplock courts. We are a stable democracy but in what direction is this country going when a second criminal court and emergency legislation dominate the area of serious crime?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy will be aware that a number of years after the Good Friday Agreement was entered into, it is still not functioning properly. There are groups on this island still engaged in paramilitarism, not merely dissident republicans but also the provisional IRA. That organisation has proved in the past to be ruthless in its intimidation of people involved in the criminal process. I need only mention circumstances in which witnesses were intimidated arising from the killing of Detective Garda Jerry McCabe in Adare in 1997. Witnesses were extensively intimidated by members of the IRA into retracting their statements which resulted in a manslaughter verdict rather than one of capital murder.

It is by no means fanciful. There is active paramilitarism on this island and people who believe, when they kill policemen or beat up, torture or murder people, rob banks or extort money etc., that they are acting with a mandate from history and that their actions do not amount to crimes. They believe they are justified in intimidating those who testify against them in courts. Unfortunately, while that is going on, the ordinary courts will continue to remain incapable of dealing with such serious organised intimidation. As somebody who believes passionately in the system of jury trial, it is my fervent desire to restore fully, as quickly as possible, the system of jury trial in Ireland. Let us keep our moral compass clear on this issue. The fault does not lie with Government. It emphatically lies with those groups who reject our police force, our courts — both jury and non-jury — and the concept that any of their actions are criminal in the eyes of our law. Those groups have proven that they are murderous in their capacity to intimidate witnesses, and I will not back down in the face of these groups or allow this country to become a no-go area as far the enforcement of law is concerned.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Incident rates are going down.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As long as subversive groups which do not accept the rule of law operate on this island, we will continue to need the Special Criminal Court. History shows they are quite prepared to intimidate not just witnesses but also jurors. In that situation, the ordinary system cannot apply. We all want to see an end to the Special Criminal Court, but that will only happen when we see an end to racketeering, criminality and all activities of the provisional IRA and other subversive groups. The Minister should accept from my remarks that he has the full support of Fine Gael in doing what is necessary with regard to bringing such people to justice.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very grateful.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Why do we need a second criminal court? Five cases hardly present a need for such a court. What is the make-up of the five cases? It has been the custom over recent years to take the easy option and bring in cases which could be dealt with by ordinary courts. That might be the reason we have a backlog. What is the position regarding Mr. Justice Hederman's report presented almost two years ago in terms of the Special Criminal Court?

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In its review, the majority of the Hederman committee stated the threat posed by paramilitaries or organised crime is sufficient to justify the retention of the Special Criminal Court. There is no advantage for me in organising a second Special Criminal Court. The Supreme Court stated in respect of people charged with serious offences that the fact they are likely to commit further serious offences while on bail does not constitute a ground for denying them bail if they are facing a lengthy period of incarceration prior to their trial. I must deal with that situation.

I fully agree with the Deputy that it seems strange as we move towards comparative improvement in security that trials seem to take longer and the backlog seems to get greater. That seems egregious, but I cannot direct the courts on how they carry out their functions. I cannot tell judges to hurry up and speed up cases. I do not have that function with regard to the criminal justice process. We have an independent Judiciary. All I can do is provide the country with a system which guarantees an early trial for those facing trials in such circumstances.

The Deputy asked me to specify the charges in respect of people whose trials are pending in the Special Criminal Court. I am not in a position to do that. However, the Director of Public Prosecutions conscientiously opts for jury trial whenever he considers that appropriate. I have confidence both in the courts and in the Director of Public Prosecutions not to abuse the Special Criminal Court to deprive somebody of the right to jury trial. The grounds on which a person is tried in the Special Criminal Court are well known.