Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister and welcome the opportunity to speak on the proposed renewal by the Government of the relevant provisions of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. Like other colleagues, I have spoken many times in this House on the debate as to renewal. Last night in the Dáil, my colleague, Deputy Sherlock, spoke on amendments to the motions. In light of what ensued in the Dáil, I do not propose to press the amendments. However, as Deputy Sherlock said, there is a question for us in the Oireachtas to determine in respect of these renewal motions.

I should also add my voice to that of other colleagues in acknowledging the context in which the Government is putting forward the motion, in particular the tragic and horrific death of Lyra McKee in Derry. I want to express my utter condemnation of that appalling murder and my sympathy to her family, her friends and her community. Of course, that reminded us of the ongoing threat of dissident republican and paramilitary violence, about which the Minister has spoken. I share with others the condemnation of organised crime and the impact it is having on so many communities, notably, and most recently, in north inner city Dublin. I acknowledge that context in which we are debating the renewal of these motions.

As Deputy Sherlock said last night, as legislators, we must always remember the provisions we are scrutinising are subject to annual scrutiny precisely because they represent an interference with due process rights of the accused and with the normal standards of criminal justice, and the Minister has very fairly acknowledged this. We need to ensure we are complying with our required functions under the Constitution and legislation. Article 38.3.1° of the Constitution states that in order for specified offences to be tried in non-jury courts, the inadequacy of the ordinary courts to administer justice must be determined in accordance with law. Deputy Sherlock spoke about what that means and about the need, therefore, for the Houses of the Oireachtas to consider annually whether the ordinary courts are inadequate to administer justice in these cases, in order for the requirements of the legislation to be complied with.

The Oireachtas has delegated to the Dáil and the Seanad the decision to be taken annually as to whether the courts remain inadequate, and that is the basis on which these motions are passed every year. The difficulty for us is that the statutory report which the Minister furnishes to both Houses annually always gives the number of times each offence has been prosecuted, the arrests made under each provision and so on, but what it does not give us in any detail is consideration as to the adequacy of the ordinary courts to administer justice and why the Government is saying the ordinary courts are inadequate to administer justice. That is the point which was the kernel of the proposed amendments that were debated in the Dáil last night by Deputy Sherlock.

As I have said in previous years, as well as scrutinising the basis on which the motions are put forward and the basis on which the Government is saying the ordinary courts are inadequate, we also need to take cognisance of the pattern of usage and, indeed, non-usage of the different provisions. I note in respect of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act that there are a number of sections which have not been used at all in the past year. Indeed, when one looks back, there is a pattern non-usage of certain provisions under sections 3, 6, 8, 9, 12 and 17. It is similar with the Criminal Justice Act where, again, we see no arrests made under section 71A in the last year, which is the provision on directing the activities of a criminal organisation. Where we see a pattern of non-usage, as legislators, we need to inquire as to whether it is necessary every year to renew those specific provisions. It is not just the general issue as to whether or not the ordinary courts are inadequate but also the continuance in operation of specific provisions where there is a pattern of non-usage.

I put these issues forward. As I said, I do not propose to press a vote on the issue today and I acknowledge the ongoing threat of dissident republican activity in the North and the threat of organised crime. However, where we are providing for a non-jury courts on this exceptional basis, where we are saying that under the Constitution the ordinary courts are inadequate, we need, and we will be requiring in future years, a higher level of evidence to be offered to us by the Government as to why it is said the ordinary courts are inadequate to administer justice in these specific instances.