Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, is very welcome. We will now deal with No. 1, motion regarding the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and No. 2, motion regarding the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. Both motions will be debated together and decided separately. I call on the Acting Leader to move No. 1, motion regarding the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998.

Garret Kelleher (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2025 and ending on 29th June, 2026.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The two motions before the House seek the approval of Seanad Éireann to continue in force provisions in the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 aimed at combating terrorism and organised crime.Given the nature of these important provisions, the Houses of the Oireachtas have decided that they should be periodically reviewed. The Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration is required to lay reports before the Oireachtas on the use of the relevant provisions in the two Acts, and reports covering the 12 months up to 31 May 2025 were placed in the Oireachtas Library on 18 June.

Senators will be aware that the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing in August 1998. This was a necessary and proportionate response to an atrocious and barbaric act and the murder of 29 innocent people by the Real IRA. These provisions of the criminal law provide strong legislative powers to ensure that the Garda and the courts are in a position to meet the challenge laid down by those opponents of peace. Section 18 of the 1998 Act provides that sections 2 to 4, inclusive, 6 to 12, inclusive, 14 and 17 must be renewed by the Oireachtas at least annually if they are to remain in force.

The report laid before this House includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use of the provisions in question over the past 12 months and a table setting out usage figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation. It is clear that the so-called dissident republicans, who have their origins in the Provisional IRA and INLA, continue to represent a threat, although, thankfully, a lesser one than in the past. Despite the progress towards peace made over the years, they continue to seek to return to the fruitless violence of the past. They have remained resolute in their opposition to democracy and the rule of law and all that the Good Friday Agreement stands for, and they remain wedded to brutality and criminality. It is also well established that these groups have links to, and operate hand in hand with, organised criminals.

There is no cause of complacency in countering the threat posed by these organisations. North-South co-operation in this area is crucial, and co-operation between gardaí and their counterparts in Northern Ireland is strong - indeed, automatic when needed most. In recent years, the benefits of that co-operation have been apparent from successful joint operations between An Garda Síochána and the PSNI. Indeed, the joint Cross Border Policing Strategy 2025-2027 provides a platform for An Garda Síochána and the PSNI to build on existing strategic and operational collaboration and to strengthen policing capacity and capability. I pay tribute to the Garda and PSNI officers who continue to co-operate closely and work tirelessly together to keep their communities safe and to counter all threats from terrorism.

It is our duty to ensure those tasked with protecting us from this threat have at their disposal the appropriate measures to meet it. In that regard, I am firmly of the view that the provisions I am seeking renewal of today are necessary to support An Garda Síochána in investigating, disrupting and dismantling the activities of terrorists. The report laid before this House, in addition to providing information on the use of the provisions in question over the past year, also notes the clear view of the Garda Commissioner that the Act continues to be an important tool in ongoing efforts to combat terrorism.

Of course, while the 1998 Act provides for a response to a domestic threat arising from dissident republican terrorism, as an open democracy it is very important that we do not lose sight of the threat from violent extremism and international terrorism. There has been generally a deterioration in the international security landscape in recent times, in part due to terrible wars in Ukraine and in the Middle East. Europol, in its most recent terrorism situation and trend report 2025, sets out the threat situation at EU level. The report confirms that terrorism, particularly jihadist and lone actor attacks, remains a key threat to the EU's internal security.

The EU recently published its internal security strategy, ProtectEU. The strategy notes the changed security environment and evolving geopolitical landscape, where the links between the EU's internal and external security require more action against the range of threats faced, including hybrid threats by hostile foreign states and state-sponsored actors, powerful organised crime networks, and the ongoing threat faced from terrorism and technological advancements. Ireland is not immune from the threats arising in this changed security environment, and we must have the capability to deal with such threats.

The views of An Garda Síochána are clearly set out in the report and it is that the continued operation of these provisions is required. It is my strong view and the strong view of the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration that the relevant sections should be continued in operation for a further 12 months.

Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 is also the subject of a motion before the House. It refers to a small number of serious, organised crime offences that are set out in Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Section 8 of the 2009 Act makes these offences scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the Offences Against the State Act 1939.That is to say, trials for these offences are to be heard in the Special Criminal Court, subject to the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions to direct that offences be tried in the ordinary courts. The purpose of this provision is to guard against the possibility of interference with jury trials by ruthless criminal groups that seek to behave as though they are beyond the law. It was enacted as a response to a number of difficulties where the justice system was considered to be under serious threat from organised crime. Organised crime groups have shown a particular ruthlessness in their activities, including attacks on witnesses and intimidation of jurors. It was imperative that the criminal justice system was robust enough to withstand the assault launched upon it.

Most Senators will agree that this imperative remains. Supporting the efforts of An Garda Síochána in combating organised crime and bringing to justice those involved remains a priority for the Government. This was reflected in the record allocation of €2.48 billion in budget 2025. An Garda Síochána is working intensively to bear down on the criminals involved and deserves praise for its considerable success in disrupting their activities. I draw attention to the joint task force operation in March that resulted in £6.5 million worth of drugs being seized near Belfast and An Garda Síochána's operation in May that resulted in the seizure of €5.4 million.

Senators will also be aware of other significant cases in which individuals have been sent forward for trial to the Special Criminal Court in recent weeks. I acknowledge this important work and the brave gardaí who persevere with it, day in and day out. The report that the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration has laid before the House, in accordance with section 8, covers the period from 1 June 2024 to 31 May 2025. It includes information provided by the Garda Commissioner on the use of the Act over the past 12 months. It is clear from the report that An Garda Síochána made a significant number of arrests in respect of offences relating to section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 2011, with 11 charges laid before the Special Criminal Court and three convictions recorded.

A further two sentencing hearings were dealt with in the Special Criminal Court during the reporting period. The views of An Garda Síochána are clearly set out in the report. It is my strong view, and that of the Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration that section 8 should remain in operation for a further 12 months.

I wish to briefly address another matter. The House will be aware that the majority and minority reports of the independent review group were published in June 2023. The majority report recommended the repeal of the Acts and their replacement with modern, bespoke legislation. As part of this, the assessment of the majority of the review group is that there is, and will continue to be, an ongoing need for a non-jury court, as permitted under the Constitution, to try serious criminal offences in certain limited and exceptional circumstances. The Minister for Justice, Home Affairs and Migration recently informed the Government that he accepts, in principle, the recommendations of the majority report and that he will bring proposals forward in due course. In the meantime, as set out in the two reports laid before the House, it is the clear view of An Garda Síochána that the provisions of the 1998 and 2009 Acts continue to be both necessary and effective in ongoing efforts to fight against terrorism and serious organised crime. On the basis of the information set out in the reports and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I propose that the House approve the continued operation of the relevant provisions of the 1998 and 2009 Acts for a further 12 months, commencing on 30 June.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister of State. Group spokespersons have ten minutes and all other Senators have five. Senator Robbie Gallagher is first.

Robbie Gallagher (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. From a Fianna Fáil perspective, we are very happy to support both the motions as outlined in great detail by the Minister of State. We are happy that this debate is taking place. As the Minister of State did, I pay tribute to the brave women and men of An Garda Síochána who go out on a daily basis and put their lives at risk to ensure that we can enjoy a relatively safe and free society. I thank him for outlining in great detail the subject matter of the business before us.

This is an annual occurrence. I was justice spokesperson during the previous term as well. We have been through dealing with this particular piece of business on an annual basis. As the Minister of State indicated, we have to do it before the end of this month. Unfortunately, he also outlined, the threat still remains, albeit in slightly reduced form, which is to be welcomed. There is, however, still reference to the fact that an attack is likely from paramilitaries in the State. This is something we all need to be aware of.

I am happy to support both motions, and I pledge my party's full support in respect of them. I note the Minister of State's intention, as outlined, to accept in principle the recommendations of the majority report of the independent review group to examine the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act and the measures included therein. That is business for another day, however. As stated, I am very happy to support the motions on behalf of my party. I look forward to both passing through the House swiftly.

Joe Conway (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am happy to be speak on these conjoined motions. The Minister of State went through the genesis of the Special Criminal Court and the Offences Against the State Act. I understand that many in the House will probably consider the two Acts under discussion as legal anachronisms. In terms of combating national and international terrorism, however, they are both still relevant and necessary. I say that with the say-so of the remainder of our group.

The 2025 report on the operation of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act and the report on the operation of section 8 of the 2009 Act indicate that between 2009 and 31 May 2025, there have been a total of 1,116 arrests under the provisions of the Acts. We hear many international human rights organisations, which, in general, I firmly support, casting doubt on the evidence that is gained in secret through taping and video-recording and on taking the word of a garda as evidence. The fact remains, however, that out of those 1,000-plus arrests, a total of 13 convictions have been secured. That is not out of kilter with the position in comparable jurisdictions or the lower courts.

I will now address the Good Friday Agreement, which is one of the most important documents in the history of Ireland in this century and the previous one. Oftentimes, it has been threatened by the activities of groups on both sides of the political divide. These groups are heinous and dangerous in their composition and actions. The Garda Commissioner is of the view that the Acts to which the motion relates continue to be a very important tool in the armoury of An Garda Síochána in its ongoing fight against terrorism. Key provisions of the Acts are regularly used in the ongoing investigations of terrorist activity. It is important that this House mandates the continuing use of those provisions for another year at least.

Molaim An Garda Síochána. Tá sé tuillte aige. Comhlíonann sé a dhualgais go díograiseach. In this century, 26 members of An Garda Síochána have lost their lives as a result of one type of heinous illegal activity or another. As the Minister of State and Senator Gallagher stated, the work of gardaí in protecting the community is growing ever more complex and demanding in light of modern developments.

It was reported in The Irish Times last month that the legislation underpinning the Special Criminal Court and the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act are set to be repealed by the Minister for Justice on the recommendation of the review group. As far as I understand the matter, however, it is still acknowledged widely, and we have had evidence of it here today, that non-jury trials will play quite a significant role in the future of justice in Ireland.

I want to talk about one aspect of the collection of information and its use by terrorist organisations and how important it is that gardaí and the forces of law and order are able to keep up to speed with developments that happen and that are probably not in the ken of anyone in this House. I would not be able to do it anyway, and I am not too sure that many others in the House would be either. An estimated 6% of content on the Internet is to be found on the dark web. If I was asked to get on to the dark web, I do not think I would have a clue how to do so. However, I am reliably assured that with a basic five-minute tutorial I would be able to do so. Generally, we would use something like Google or Bing, but using an onion router like the Tor browser is the way to get on dark web. The latter utilises content from individual sources like forums, emails, social media and company databases. Everything within the dark web is decentralised. In order to access content, users need to type in complex links composed of numbers and letters, but they can be easily directed as to where to find these. For example, the commerce website known as Dream Market has an address that is an amalgam of letters and numbers that is finalised by .onion. That is the significant factor. The dark web contains information about public representatives, military figures and so on. It also contains an awful lot of information about weapons, the procurement and construction of weapons and explosives and just about every dog-and-divil device that can be produced to take life, maim and cause mayhem in societies such as ours that deeply value democracy. That is why I and the members of my group are steadfast in urging the continuance of this legislation.

Garret Kelleher (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit as ucht teacht chun an t-ábhar seo a phlé linn inniu. As with the two previous speakers, on behalf of the Fine Gael group, I rise to speak in support of the two motions before the House. I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for his comprehensive opening statement in which he outlined the importance of the House passing both motions this afternoon.

In relation to the motions pertaining to the review of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act and the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act, it is worth pointing out that, as democrats, we all value the importance and independent of juries and the role they play in our justice system. However, when nefarious actors go to great lengths to obstruct the delivery of justice, it is absolutely incumbent on us to provide an alternative method for the delivery of justice. I am glad to hear the Minister of State emphasise the continuing threat posed by dissident republicans and those who can trace their roots back to the Provisional IRA and the INLA. He rightly pointed out that we cannot be complacent in continuing to deal with this live and ongoing threat to our democracy and the rule of law. It is entirely appropriate for the Special Criminal Court to continue its delivery of justice when we consider, as the Minister of State outlined, the possibility of attacks on witnesses and the intimidation of jurors, which is a real threat.

Like the previous speakers, I welcome the majority report of the independent review group and the ongoing consultation with An Garda Síochána. I also welcome the fact that the provisions of the 1998 and 2009 Acts continue to be implemented, particularly as they are crucial elements of our justice system in combating terrorism and organised crime. The Fine Gael group fully supports the motions to facilitate the continuation of the vital work in this regard.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

“:

- resolves that sections 2 and 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2025 and ending on 29th June 2026; and

- calls on the Minister for Justice to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group without further delay.”.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is almost 90 years since the Offences Against the State Act was first introduced in 1939. It was born out of a context that no longer reflects the Ireland we live in today. It was a time of constitutional transition and genuine national emergency. The Ireland of 2025 is not the Ireland of 1939 and we cannot continue to pretend otherwise, yet here we are again, for the 26th consecutive year since the Good Friday Agreement, renewing emergency legislation that should have been dismantled and replaced long ago. We were promised reform. The Good Friday Agreement explicitly called for a review, with a view to dispensing with those elements that are no longer required. The reviews have happened numerous times but what do we have to show for them only more delays and more dragging of the feet by the Government. It is deeply disappointing that after the publication of the latest independent review of the Offences against the State Act, the Government is, once again, seeking to renew these outdated provisions, not because it is the right thing to do but because it has failed to bring forward new legislation based on the review's recommendations.

The independent review group made clear and reasonable recommendations. The majority call for a complete abolition of the Offences against the State Act and for its replacement with a non-jury system that meets human rights standards, one where it is the courts and not the Director of Public Prosecutions that decide whether a non-jury trial is warranted, and only when there is a real and present danger to a jury. Yet, instead of decisive legislative action, what we get is another promise that proposals will be brought in due course. Communities do not live on due course. In the meantime, we continue to rely on emergency powers, non-jury courts and legislation that belongs in the archives and not on our Statute Book.

We in Sinn Féin have been clear and consistent. Since 2020, we have abstained on these annual motions, not because we do not recognise the serious challenges proposed by organised crime but because we believe those challenges require modern, rights-compliant legislation that protects both public safety and civil liberties. We support strong and effective tools to combat organised crime, but we also support a functioning, independent and fair criminal justice system, one that is grounded in the Constitution and the human rights standards that Ireland claims to uphold.

If the threat of jury intimidation is the justification for non-jury trials, then why has there been so little action to protect jurors? The Law Reform Commission proposed concrete steps, namely, ending the daily roll call of jurors in open court, restricting public access to jury lists and criminalising jury tampering as a stand-alone offence. Sinn Féin made these proposals in our submission to the review group, yet none of these reforms have been enacted. We are left with a Government that is more comfortable renewing outdated laws than doing the hard work to reform them.

This discussion does not happen in a vacuum. Communities across this State are grappling with some serious challenges relating to crime and antisocial behaviour. Garda numbers are down across the board, in particular in community roles and road policing. The absence of community policing and youth diversion are real problems that have gone unaddressed. These failures have allowed young people, especially those from disadvantaged areas, to become vulnerable to organised crime from a young age. They are being preyed upon by drug gangs as runners or pulled into cycles of violence and addiction, all while the State stands back.

We all know it is true that we need more gardaí, but we also need investment in communities, youth services, diversion programmes, housing, mental health and education. Emergency laws will not solve any of that. That is the reason Sinn Féin is tabling amendments calling on the Minister to finally bring forward legislation based on the recommendations without further delay. This is not a call for leniency on crime, but a call for clarity, accountability and modern principled governance. It is time to end the cycle of delay and to do what we should have done years ago, which is to honour the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and replace these emergency laws with a fair, effective and rights-based alternative.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I move to the next speaker, I welcome Deputy O'Connor and his guests from the USA to the Gallery. They are very welcome. I hope they enjoy their stay here.

Patricia Stephenson (Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Cathal Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State is very welcome to the Chamber. Like my party colleagues, I will speak in support of the motion. I am particularly struck by the comments of some colleagues who spoke about the fact that our Constitution underpins the need for a right to trial by a jury.It also allows, when the framers were framing our Constitution, under Article 38.3, for special courts to be established by law for trial of offences in such cases where it may be determined, in accordance with the law, that the ordinary courts are inadequate to service the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order. Effectively, having read and reviewed the report from the Minister for justice that was laid before the Oireachtas, the members of An Garda Síochána have again reiterated clearly in it the need for these exceptional measures contained within the Special Criminal Court to be continued for another year. It is right and proper that, in a democracy, we debate these issues and that they are reviewed every 12 months. However, having reflected and taken into account the contribution from the Minister of State and the views of An Garda Síochána about the need for this legislation to be continued, I think it is only right and proper that it is reviewed and continued for another year.

I am specifically drawn by a number of the measures, and I have reviewed the legislation. I want to speak for a moment about some of the specifics that we, by supporting this measure, are equipping An Garda Síochána with in these limited circumstances. Under section 2, we will allow the use of inferences to be drawn from a failure to answer questions about membership of an unlawful organisation. Under section 7, we are criminalising possession of an article, substance or item giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that it is intended for use in connection with or related to terrorism or subversive activities. Under section 14, we are enhancing the powers of An Garda Síochána by allowing a person under investigation for membership of an unlawful organisation or for terrorist activities to be detained for up to 72 hours without charge. The reality here is that these are some of the most serious offences against the Irish people and against the State and these powers are to be utilised in limited circumstances. That is why it is appropriate that, in the report circulated to both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Minister laid out exactly the specific number of times that each of these offences occurred and the provisions of the legislation were actually used. They show that it is in limited circumstances.

However, as the Minister said earlier, it is important that it is ensured that An Garda Síochána, in those limited circumstances, is equipped to meet the challenges of the opponents of peace. Last year, when speaking on the motions on this legislation in the Dáil, the Minister for justice said it is our duty to ensure that those tasked with protecting us from the threat of terrorism, organised crime and ensuring public safety have at their disposal the appropriate measures to do so. In that instance, I place on the record of the House my support for these motions and the continued renewal of these measures for another 12 months. I recognise that the majority of those on the independent review group, in making their conclusion, said that there is an ongoing need for a non-jury court as permitted by the Irish Constitution to try serious criminal offences in certain limited and exceptional circumstances. In that regard, I welcome the fact that the Government has committed to bringing forward legislation in this area and that is in exceptional and limited circumstances.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brophy, here today and indicate that I, in general, support the two motions which are being brought before the House today. The Offences Against the State Act is a far-reaching Act and the powers conferred by it on An Garda Síochána are far-reaching, including detention and the routing of cases investigated under it to the Special Criminal Court unless there is an intervention to send them to the ordinary courts, as the Minister of State outlined.

I think, however, we should be very conscious in this House of the nature of the powers we are conferring on An Garda Síochána and the seriousness of any abuse of those powers. I raised here last week the unfortunate death of Evan Fitzgerald, who took his own life in Carlow Shopping Centre, having been charged a year earlier with possession of firearms and having been remanded on bail by the District Court in Naas. I just want to put on the record that this was a case of entrapment. Apparently Mr. Fitzgerald sought firearms on the dark web, the protonmail aspect of the dark web. Apparently Interpol or some other international agency alerted the Garda to this inquiry. The response of the Garda was to arrange to meet Mr. Fitzgerald and to conclude a deal with him in which gardaí persuaded him to take an automatic rifle and a semi-automatic pistol for a price of €2,700. They then arranged to meet him for delivery of these firearms for a price of €2,700. Mr. Fitzgerald came with two childhood friends, with whom he often went camping in the woods and who had been his best friends all his life, and they took delivery of the firearms in the car of one of his friends. The car proceeded some distance away to another place, where it was intercepted members of An Garda Síochána, who smashed the windows, dragged out the occupants and made an arrest. The weapons in question had been disabled, were not capable of discharge and were taken from the Garda's own reservoir of seized firearms.

When the matter came before the District Court, the Garda initially opposed bail. When eventually bail on certain conditions was granted, the District Court judge, Desmond Zaidan, who had been told on sworn evidence that the allegation was that these individuals purchased these firearms on the dark net but that these individuals were not involved in organised crime - those words were spoken to him - very naturally later asked, "When you say the dark web, do you have any idea who was selling them on the dark web?" A member of An Garda Síochána, in sworn evidence, told him, "That is an ongoing investigation. At this stage I wouldn't want to", and the judge said, "Compromise the trial", and he said, "That is an ongoing investigation on the dark web." I just want you to think about that, that a judge was considering whether bail should be given to these accused, three young men who he said appeared to him to be young and naive, and the gardaí had informed the court that they had wanted the weapons to shoot them in the woods, but the gardaí wanted to deprive them of bail, which meant being imprisoned pending trial, due to what they said was the seriousness of the charge. It is a shocking thing, I have to say, that untrue and misleading evidence would be given to a judge of the Irish District Court in these circumstances, leaving him in the dark that these were decommissioned weapons supplied in a controlled delivery by members of An Garda Síochána in a setup of one naive man and his two childhood friends. I believe that is a shocking thing which needs investigation.

It raises the fundamental question of entrapment. I am not against entrapment if it is the only way to prove that a big drug dealer is bringing in massive quantities of drugs. I am not against entrapment and that controlled deliveries would take place if a terrorist organisation is importing arms, but these young men, who the judge, just looking at them, said were young and naive, were entrapped in these circumstances. I asked last week for the Minister for justice to come in and debate the circumstances in which entrapment was used. We are extending, under this legislation, powers under the Offences Against the State Act which end up with situations such as I have described. It is absolutely of the greatest importance that there should be an immediate investigation and full accountability, from the Commissioner down, as to how sworn evidence would be given to a judge of the Irish District Court which was misleading and left him in the dark, and not alone left him in the dark but left the accused in the dark to the point where they were prohibited from communicating with each other for a whole year. In that dark despairing year, Evan Fitzgerald decided to take his own life by shooting himself with a neighbour's shotgun. That is what happened, and I am demanding that there be accountability. I am saying to this House that we cannot tolerate untruths being told to an Irish District Court judge and we certainly cannot allow a situation where the judicial process is deployed on a false basis to deprive people of their liberty and to conceal from members of the Judiciary the true facts when they are determining whether someone should be granted bail.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Senators that, when matters are still under investigation, we have to be careful about naming people. I thank Senator McDowell.

Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful for the consideration of the motions today and thank all Senators for their contributions, in particular those in support of the motions. The threat from terrorist activity remains, including from dissident republican paramilitary groups, that warrants the continuation in force of the 1998 Acts and provisions. Likewise, the renewal of section 8 of the 2009 Act is an important contribution to the overall framework of measures aimed at tackling organised crime. Every Senator knows the appalling damage caused by organised crime, in particular the drugs trade, on individuals, families and communities. These threats require an effective response from the criminal justice system, and as legislators, we have a duty to support the Garda and justice system in tackling these threats. Retaining these measure in respect of the most serious crimes associated with terrorism and organised crime ensures that justice can be served and is free from any attempts to thwart the criminal justice process.

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2025 and ending on 29th June, 2026.

Nicole Ryan (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "Seanad Éireann" and substitute the following:

“:

- resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period beginning on 30th June, 2025 and ending on 29th June, 2026; and

- calls on the Minister for Justice to bring forward legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Independent Review Group without further delay.”.

Joanne Collins (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second the amendment.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When is it proposed to sit again?

Seán Kyne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At 10.30 tomorrow morning.

Mark Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.