Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)

I am a bit out of breath as I was running all over the place trying to get from committees. I am very concerned about the continued renewal of this Act without any reforms. I understand the historical debates we have had, as I looked through the records. The question of reform is something that is discussed annually. The provisions introduced in the wake of the Omagh bombing were always intended to be exceptional and temporary. I have, therefore, great difficulty with the fact that more than 25 years later, they remain on the Statute Book without any consideration being given to the practical reforms that could be introduced to increase the human rights approach of this Act.

Continuous renewal should not be the case for something that was introduced in exceptional circumstances at a very different time. As legislators, we must be committed to upholding civil liberties and democratic oversight. How is it acceptable to normalise emergency powers that undermine basic legal protections, including the right to silence, the presumption of innocence and trial by jury?

Under this Act, we have a process where people can be tried and charged but have vastly different experiences in the justice system if they are referred to the special court. There seems to be an assumption of guilt in the special court, with a conviction rate of about 95% compared to that of 66% in normal courts. Where is the equity and justice within these statistics?

Section 14 is particularly problematic, as it enables blanket referrals to the Special Criminal Court, a non-jury court that bypasses the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed under the Constitution and the European Court of Human Rights. The UN Human Rights Committee has also said that the Special Criminal Court violates international human rights treaties.

The Social Democrats believe in the right to a fair trial by jury, which is a core protection under the Constitution and international human rights law. My discomfort with this renewal reflects a broader concern, one also shared by the independent review group, civil society and legal experts, that extraordinary powers have become institutionalised in our justice system.

In 2023, Deputy Catherine Murphy spoke in the Dáil about how the use of such powers was drifting beyond their intended scope. She cited the referral of ordinary protest-related charges, including those connected to events in Kildare, to the Special Criminal Court, as an example of this kind of mission creep. These courts were established to deal with threats to the State, not to suppress civil disobedience or community activism. We cannot ignore the constitutional human rights concerns raised by the minority report of the review group, which described the proposal to make the Special Criminal Court permanent and to legislate for a replacement non-jury court as constitutionally inappropriate, given its origins in the emergency constitutional provisions.

The Irish Council for Civil Liberties, ICCL, in its June 2025 briefing, asked the critical question as to whether any permanent replacement would be granted in ordinary legislation or if it would require a referendum to amend the Constitution, as was the case with the Court of Appeal. These are not just technicalities; they go to the heart of legitimacy and constitutional propriety.

I am also troubled by the majority report's recommendations that the DPP should continue to have exclusive power to choose trial venues in non-jury cases, with no practical means to challenge the decision. The minority report offered a more democratic safeguard in having the decision made or reviewed by a judge. That is a reform that should be taken seriously.

Furthermore, the continued use of opinion evidence, which is no longer relied on in places like the North, raises serious questions about the equivalency provisions of the Good Friday Agreement.

In terms of jury intimidation, the US and the UK have provisions similar to those outlined in the minority report, such as remote juries, anonymous juries, the non-disclosure of names and occupations, jury-only entrances and additional protection from the media. These are practical solutions to strengthen the challenge around jury intimidation.

The Minister has yet to publish the outcome of the stakeholder consultation process that followed the publication of the Peart report, nor have we seen a clear human rights-proofing process for any replacement framework. The minority report suggested seeking the input of the UN special rapporteur on counter-terrorism and human rights, We strongly support that suggestion.

In the absence of a clear, rights-compliant alternative to the current provisions and with significant public safety concerns still active, I will support this renewal. I do not want to see it renewed without additional provisions being put in place. That is why I implore the Government to have proper reforms put in place so that this time next year we will not have the same debate again.

I want to make it clear that while this support is conditional, it cannot be used as a blank cheque for inaction. In the next 12 months, the Government must deliver a legislative framework in which non-jury trials are a rare exception and not the default. If the State believes certain cases require special handling, the DPP can justify that on a case-by-case basis, rather than continuing with the indiscriminate measures that weaken democracy and the rule of law. We risk the steady erosion of civil liberties under the guise of public safety if we continue to renew these measures year on year. I call for urgent reform so we do not have this debate next year and the year after.