Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

I do not wish to contradict my colleagues on this side of the House, but this is where I part company with them. This goes to the heart of the Bill. The nature of the offences at issue is such that intimidation comes to the fore. My experience of constituents being intimidated is that it is insidious and pernicious and gives rise to a difficult situation. I appreciate that Mr. Justice Paul Carney and others have questioned where the evidence is of intimidation of jurors. It would have been wise for the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality Defence and Women's Rights to have examined the provision in more detail before it was proposed and for the Garda Commissioner to meet the members of that committee to provide information on the basis of the proposal.

Every Member in this House is exempt from jury duty, both as Members of the Seanad and, in some cases, as lawyers. Many people who speak about jury duty are exempt. There are not many people who, if called up to serve on jury duty in a case relating to gangland crime, would not look for every conceivable way to get out of it. I do not have the same concerns and reservations about this proposal. I do not believe that the notion of trial by judge, as distinct from jury, for serious offences is altogether bad. We have the tradition of trial by jury in the common law system but trial by judge is common practice in the other member states of the European Union and I do not believe their systems of justice are less effective. This is an exceptional situation. We have a problem with gangland crime and in this instance the provision is not unreasonable. The amendment cuts across that entirely.

I welcome two safeguards contained in the Bill. The first is the one year review. The second is the provision whereby nothing in section 8(3) relating to scheduled offences affects the Director of Public Prosecution's powers to direct that a person would not be sent forward for trial by the Special Criminal Court. Those two safeguards are saving clauses in this provision. In general terms the amendment would cut across that section and weaken the Bill.