Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach. I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber and acknowledge his dedicated efforts. Jury trials are a cornerstone of our justice system. The UN Human Rights Committee has said one should only dispense with a jury trial in very exceptional circumstances. They are extraordinary courts for extraordinary times.

Senator Ward said they are a necessary evil. I submit if they are such a necessary evil, that they be backed by the very latest evidence to justify the continuation of a necessary evil. I am concerned about the perceived rubber-stamping of this every year, though I welcome that it comes to the Oireachtas every year and is held to account, but I am concerned it is more in ceremony and less in substance.A jury is the cornerstone of the criminal law system as it ensures that the innocence or guilt of a person charged with an offence is determined by 12 randomly chosen members of the community, each of whom brings to the process the benefit of his or her life experience and individual perspective. In typically colourful language, Lord Devlin, one of the most senior judges in the common law world, stated that trial by jury "is the lamp that shows that freedom lives". When the Birmingham Six took a civil action against the West Midlands Police, he could not fathom that the police would lie, as that would create an appalling vista. In a better moment, however, he, while Master of the Rolls, properly summed up the importance of trial by jury.

It is only in the most exceptional circumstances that I would support dispensing with the constitutional right to trial by jury. The Constitution contains many rights that point to only getting rid of jury trials in the most exceptional of circumstances. The Constitution guarantees equality before the law, including the right to equal protection of the law. With the renewal of these provisions in the Acts, we will continue to have the bizarre situation whereby two citizens in Ireland can be tried on the same serious offence, referred to as a scheduled offence, in two different court formats. One of them will have the benefit of a jury trial while the other will not have the benefit of his or her peers as jurors. Of course, with the Special Criminal Court comes a different evidential outline in terms of the evidence that is allowed. With the utmost respect, it is a weaker evidence test in respect of opinion evidence and interpretation evidence.

I have concerns. There is a guarantee in our laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. We have a duty to uphold the rights of citizens and we must do so. That includes the right to a fair trial and a jury trial. The test is whether there is an alternative. This is the crux of what I am coming to. If it is an absolutely necessary and unavoidable evil, then, of course, we protect our people. Where is the evidence that alternatives have been sought, however? In this day and age, having learned from Covid, we have remote hearings. Why can we not have screen jurors or anonymised jurors? I am not convinced that this is being taken seriously enough. This right is being taken away from people without it being convincingly shown that it is totally necessary. Human rights organisations not just in Ireland but throughout the world would state that only in the most exceptional circumstances should non-jury trials be conducted.

A certain political party has been riding high in the opinion polls for some time. It is entitled to change its mind or do U-turns. The late Brian Lenihan Snr. once spoke about the futility of consistency. Such a U-turn is acceptable if it is based on courage and working it out, rather than on political expediency. Only the people who are making the U-turn can answer for that, however. They alone truly know. In a democracy, we need a vibrant Government and a vibrant Opposition to hold the Government to account. There could be a long run-in to the next election. It could be a long and winding road. I would not like to see the balance and checks of opposition stultified by people in opposition looking over their shoulders and dropping such a firmly held principle due to political expediency. Is it because they are preparing to be more ready to be in government or whatever? Only they can answer that. I am concerned that I have not seen the evidence. I am not asking people to vote for or against this today. That is everyone's individual right. At least, however, they should not lose their voice. If they held to something for many years, they should not lose that voice suddenly. Where is that voice gone if there has been a deeply held concern about this for many years?

A functioning democracy needs jurors and, I am afraid to say, I have not seen convincing evidence to justify the continuation of trials without jurors.