Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am glad to hear he is conducting a review of the provisions of the 2009 Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act. That is a useful announcement. I hope it will be a comprehensive review and that, in particular, it will look at the necessity of this provision in section 8.

I begin by acknowledging, as the Minister and other speakers have, the real and substantial threat posed to ordinary citizens' lives and to the criminal justice system by organised crime, the immense crime that has been done by organised crime at many different levels and the enormous damage done, especially where witnesses and jurors are subject to intimidation, which, I note, was the motivation behind this provision.

In previous debates on related provisions, we referred to the dreadful murder of Mr. Roy Collins, and Senator O'Donovan referred to Limerick as a place where there has been serious concern about the intimidation of witnesses in criminal trials. These are immense harms which we are seeking to address.

However, I have profound concern about this provision. I regret to see us being asked to renew it for a further year. In 2009, when it was initially proposed and we debated it at length in this House, the Labour group opposed the section and, indeed, tabled an amendment to address our serious concern about it. I would ask the Minister to look again at the text of the amendment, to which I will refer, and the concerns, which we expressed then and which I would express again, to see, when he is conducting a review of the provisions overall, whether it is necessary to have this sweeping provision in section 8. Our objection to it relates to the broad sweeping nature of it. Other speakers have referred to it as draconian and, as the Minister stated, it marks a departure from the right to trial by jury.

I described it previously as potentially amounting to an admission by us of our defeat to criminal gangs that we are making a declaration that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice. The Irish Human Rights Commission made clear a similar objection in its observations on the Bill in 2009 when it stated that it considered that the developed system of criminal justice is capable of effectively confronting the problem of organised crime without resorting to a parallel criminal justice system that does not provide the accused with a right to trial by jury. Our concern about section 8 is that it marked the adoption of a parallel criminal justice system outside the realm of so-called subversive offences within which the Special Criminal Court already operates. We also felt it was unnecessary because the DPP has already got the power to refer non-scheduled offences to the Special Criminal Court. The then Minister argued that it was important to make a general provision in respect of organised crime.

I would ask the Minister to consider, during his more comprehensive review, whether this sweeping provision is necessary and to look at the amendment we put forward on behalf of the Labour group in 2009 which gave the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, the power to refer matters of organised crime to the Special Criminal Court but giving grounds for such referrals. Our amendment suggested that the DPP should be of opinion that there is a real and substantial risk that the jurors or potential jurors may be intimidated or put in fear. That, we felt, was a more focused way of dealing with the issue. Indeed, the Irish Human Rights Commission made clear also that there were alternative methods that could be used to protect juries and witnesses in criminal trials from intimidation rather than making a blanket provision such as this that denies the right to jury trial to those charged with certain offences.

One of the provisions I welcomed - I think the only one - in section 8 in 2009 was the fact that it would be subject to an annual review. In the previous debate held just before the Minister came to the House, we debated the role of the Seanad and how to make it more effective. One of the points many speakers highlighted was the need for the Seanad to retain a level of heightened legislative scrutiny over any legislation that came before us.

In the interests of acting as a forum where we can give that level of scrutiny to legislation, we must be clear that when provisions of this nature come before us for annual review, as in this case and as the provisions of the Offences against the State Act did yesterday, we must ensure we are not simply a rubber-stamping House. We must scrutinise the measures put before us and we must note in particular the information we are given. I agree with Senator Bradford that we need full information.

I note the Minister stated this provision has not been used in the past 12 months. I do not recall whether 12 months ago it had been used in the previous 12 months, although I am aware this is a relatively new provision, as others have said. I am aware the Garda has sought for its retention. If it is to be retained for a further 12 months in 12 months time, however, when the Minister comes to the House, and it has not been used within that further 12 month period, we must take a serious step towards changing the nature of section 8 to ensure we no longer have draconian measures in place unless we can be sure they are effective in the fight against organised crime.