Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank Senators for their contributions and I thank the majority of Senators who spoke in support of this resolution. I do not believe this House should be a rubber stamp. It is correct that we have an opportunity to consider each year the workings of legislation such as the measure we are dealing with and the measures we discussed yesterday.

I cannot agree with Senator Cullinane's comments on the impact of this section on human rights. The ultimate issue with regard to human rights is the right to life and to go about one's business in a manner in which one is not interfered with. Unfortunately, there is organised crime and there are criminal gangs in this jurisdiction who are intent on murder and mayhem, who have no difficulty in seeking to intimidate either witnesses or jurors, if they have the facility to do so, and who are willing, as I mentioned in the House yesterday, to engage in open gang and gun warfare on our streets, in people's homes and in public houses.

It would be extremely naive of any of us as legislators to assume that if measures such as those being discussed today and yesterday were removed from the legislative architecture available, then in some way we would better protect human rights. In fact, it would amount to saying to certain victims who suffer trauma and tragedy in their lives as a consequence of the activities of criminal gangs and those engaged in organised crime that we are granting some of these individuals impunity. This is because those people would be free to take whatever actions they believe appropriate to undermine our courts system and criminal justice system.

The provision seeks to counteract those who pose this type of threat and who are willing to subvert the State and the courts system as we would wish to see it operate. The ideal situation in the criminal law area is to have a judge, jury and no need for special courts. However, the special courts have proved their importance over the years by ensuring trials can take place in circumstances in which juries cannot be intimidated. They are essential so that justice can truly be done and the human rights of victims can be protected. We have a criminal justice system which presumes the accused is innocent until proved guilty, and the Special Criminal Court has the full procedural panoply of provisions necessary to guarantee that trials take place in an appropriate and proper manner. The appellate system copperfastens the guarantee that justice will be fully and properly done.

It is important that we recognise the reality of what confronts our society and the Garda, and the difficulties that can arise in facilitating trials within the normal courts system. I appreciate that it is important that we monitor how this provision is utilised and that we ensure it is effective. If it turns out that it is not effective and is not being utilised, clearly it cannot then be alleged that it is interfering with anyone's human rights. We need a provision which ensures the protection necessary to guarantee the proper administration of justice in the criminal law area so that those who have committed crimes are brought to book, that prosecutions can fully and properly take place and that court decisions can be made.

Senator Bacik spoke about the original approach of the Labour Party in regard to the measure and I acknowledge her suggestion regarding the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, in the context of the history of this provision, I do not accept that anything particular arises in that context. Nevertheless, I have an open mind on these issues. It is important that we see how the provision works in the next 12 months and whether it facilitates the conduct of trials in safe circumstances in which people are brought to justice. We must see whether it genuinely contributes to the administration of justice. If it does not, we will have to return to it and address the issue. However, it is important to keep the provision in place and that the resolution is supported. I thank the Senators who have contributed to the debate, particularly those who expressed their support for the motion.