Catherine Ardagh: Defending reform and non-jury courts

Thank you, Ciann Comhairle. I'm very grateful to the House for its consideration of these motions and I thank deputies for their contributions, particularly those in support, but also those who don't support the motion because their discourse is very important. Many issues have been raised today, so I know I have only eight minutes, and just for the benefit of the House and for those watching, the Independent Review Group carried out a comprehensive review of the law in this area, and the majority and minority reports of the group were published in June 2023. The main recommendations of the majority report can be summarised as follows. Repeal of the Offences Against the State Act, with select elements reflective of current and potential threats being re-enacted in replacement legislation. Establishing a new standing non-jury court to replace the special criminal court to try serious criminal offences where the ordinary courts are inadequate, and consideration to be given to consolidation of all legislation dealing with terrorist offences. I know a lot of deputies today raised the issue in relation to the timeline of the implementation of the majority report, and I can say that my department has engaged in consultation on the recommendations of the review group and has examined the reports from a variety of perspectives, including policing, governance and legislation. It was after completing and considering this extensive consultation that Minister O'Callaghan notified the Government that he accepts in principle the recommendations of the majority report. This sets a clear direction for reform. However, given the importance of the Acts over many decades, detailed proposals for reform must be thoroughly considered and approached with the utmost care. These considerations, as we know, take time, and the Minister intends to return to Government with detailed proposals in due course. There is, as we know, significant legislative work currently underway to bolster our national security, with four bills currently in the Houses. The Criminal Justice Terrorist Offences Bill will address the foreign terrorist fighter phenomenon, which includes offences of travelling to commit a terrorist offence, or organising or facilitating travel to commit a terrorist offence and receiving training for terrorism. The Garda Síochána Powers Bill, the Garda Síochána Recording Devices Amendment Bill, the Criminal Law, Civil and Defence Miscellaneous Provisions Bill will confirm that legal authority from Garda Síochána to deploy radio frequency jammers for counter-unmanned aircraft systems purposes where necessary to carry out its policing functions and other related civil security pieces of legislation. While work on proposals to replace the Offences Against the State Act is well underway, the threat from terrorism and organised crimes, as we know, very much remains. The renewal of these provisions is necessary today to combat this threat. Many deputies raised the issue of lack of information and why the ordinary court is not sufficient. This was raised by the Labour Party and by deputies from the Social Democrats, Gibney and Gannon. Clearly, the review group recommended, on the basis of the best information available to them, that there is and will continue to be an ongoing need for a non-jury court, as permitted by the Constitution, to try serious criminal offences in certain limited and exceptional circumstances where the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order. It is up to the DPP in any individual case to direct that a trial take place before the special criminal court. That decision is subject to careful consideration on the facts and the circumstances of the case. I am conscious of the recommendation for more transparency around the court and around the procedure in particular. In that regard, I note that the DPP has placed more information into the public domain on how that decision-making process currently operates for the purpose of transparency. The report laid also provides a brief assessment of the security situation. I should caution, however, that there are clear constraints on the detail of what is and can be reported to ensure there is no longer a danger of prejudice to the investigation or prosecution of crime or the security of the state. Deputy Murphy just raised issues in relation to fundamental human rights. I am sorry, there is a fly. Some argue that non-jury courts, I know Deputy Coppinger raises also, are contrary to fundamental rights of persons before the law and international principles of administration of justice. I respectfully disagree with that analysis. While jury trial is commonplace here and is our very much preferred approach, it is not at all commonplace in the criminal justice systems of many other European states. For example, Sweden and Norway are examples of such. The special criminal court operates without a jury for sound reasons, but trials are heard there by three judges rather than one. The issuing of a reasoned judgment, which obviously would not be available in jury trial, is one of the benefits of the special criminal court and provides a basis for analysis and for parties to appeal a ruling should they wish to do so. While those judgments have always been available to the parties to the case, I welcome the plans of the court services to facilitate their publication should a judge so decide in a given case. The rules of evidence that apply in proceedings before the special criminal court are the same as those applicable in trials in the central criminal court. Anyone tried before the special criminal court has a full range of procedural protections available to them, including appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. I think Deputy Coppinger raised the issue of the belief evidence, and I want to clarify the belief evidence which is permissible in trials for membership of an unlawful organisation by virtue of section 3. Subsection 2 of the Offences Against the State Amendment Act 1972 is not one of the provisions for renewal today. Rather, I am seeking the renewal of section 2 of the Offences Against the State Amendment Act. That section provides that in proceedings concerned with the offence of membership of an unlawful organisation it is permitted for inferences to be drawn by an accused failure to answer any question material to the offence. It is important to note that inferences may be treated as corroboration of any evidence in relation to the offence, but a person cannot be convicted solely on the basis of inferences. The majority recommended that this provision be re-enacted in any legislation that replaces the offences against the state with the additional safeguard that provision be made in legislation to the effect that an inference drawn under this section should not be capable of providing the sole corroboration for belief evidence. Many members, including Deputy Carty, raised the issue of our response to organised crime. And, just to say, the record budgetary resources of over £2.74 billion in Budget 2025 allocated to Un Garda Síochána have enabled the Garda Commissioner to assign extra resources to the specialty units involved in tackling organised crime. These include the Garda National Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau, the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation and the Armed Support Unit and the Criminal Assets Bureau. In relation to an explanation as to why we have these temporary legislation today, firstly, as we know, the Special Criminals Courts are provided for in our Constitution. We have to remember that. Part 5 of the Offences Against the State Act 1939 provide for the establishment of the Special Criminal Court and the legislation is clear that the Government was entitled to make a proclamation providing for the establishment of the Court whenever it was necessary to do so. There is no provision in statute whereby such courts can only be of limited duration, nor is there any sunset clause providing that the Court only lasts any particular time. The Offences Against the State Act are not emergency laws. They are complementary to our general criminal law and apply only in the most serious of cases. In relation to a point raised by Deputy Murphy in relation to the minority report, while not endorsing the recommendation of the majority for a standing non-jury court, the minority report did accept that recourse to a non-jury court may be warranted in the interest of justice where there is a real and present danger of jury intimidation. Many Members, including Deputy Gannon, Gibney and Rice, raised the issues of the jury. I note the recommendations of the majority and also the minority in relation to examining the measures short of a non-jury trial can be taken to protect jurors. This is in both their reports. In relation to Garda recruitment, the Government is committed to building stronger, safer communities and strengthening Ungardashie Econa and very much supporting Ungardashie Econa in that regard. The overall Garda workforce increased from 15,980 in 2016 to over 18,000 as of April. In relation to Garda resources raised by Deputy Collins and other deputies over the previous few years, the focus has been on ramping up funding to provide the equipment, technology and facilities and fleet personnel for Ungardashie Econa so they can keep our communities safe. The Government is committed to building stronger, safer communities. At the heart of this debate, it is about protecting the public, supporting the rule of law and ensuring that those who seek to undermine our democracy and our communities are met with a firm and effective response from the state.