Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)

There was nothing underhand in the way the Government arrived at a decision in this matter. The Government decision was made on 14 December and it made the necessary proclamation under the 1939 Act, as was made in 1972. The basis of the Government decision was that trials are taking an increasingly long time in the Special Criminal Court and it is important that the court do its business expeditiously. I am glad the Senator agrees with me that it is important we have that facility because anyone who has observed the events that have given rise to such controversy in recent times will have noticed that one particular witness has already retracted his story. The ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice when that level of intimidation of witnesses can exist in any part of Ireland. It is a very serious matter and I am glad the Senator supports the existence of the courts in the current circumstances.

I appreciate the reason the Senator raised the issue of these amendments, which will copperfasten the position of the court, being introduced in the House this morning but the fact remains that the Government has followed all the correct procedures under the 1939 Act in the establishment of this court. A great deal of water has flowed under the legal bridge since 1939 and having examined the matter, the Government decided it was essential, if this second additional court is to function in an efficient way, to move these essentially technical amendments in the House this morning. There is nothing in these amendments that prejudices the rights of any accused person. They are simply designed to facilitate the efficient operation of the court.

Senator Cummins raised the issue of an accused whose legal team was not prepared or whose witnesses were not available. As to whether such a person would be prejudiced through having an earlier trial by virtue of the establishment of the second court, the court would take all those factors into account in coming to a final decision on whether a trial was ready to proceed. That is written into this legislation. The Senator must remember also that justice delayed is justice denied, and there is a public interest in the efficient administration of criminal justice. That is an important deterrent for the offender and it is important that we get on with the business of the courts.

As a matter of pure abstract reasoning, there is nothing improper in endowing a court with the facility of transferring from one panel of judges to another or from one court to another. After all, in the commonest of legal actions, when a litigant seeks to litigate a personal injuries claim in the High Court, there is a list of such claims and the cases are distributed between different judges. Equally, when persons are returned for trial in the Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, a number of judges are available to hear those trials and the accused may not know until the morning of his or her arraignment, or indeed later, which judge will preside at the trial.

In the case of the Special Criminal Court it is important, now that we have two courts, that we have a proper statutory basis for the efficient conduct of business between the two. I take Senator Cummins's point about the new court dealing with new cases but we will shortly be in a position to have two Special Criminal Courts and there is little point having the members of one Bench sitting on their hands while another Bench hears lengthy cases. It is important we put this legal machinery in place so that the fullness of the jurisdiction of the Special Criminal Court can be exercised where appropriate and where the director returns a case to it. That is the basis of these amendments.