Paul Murphy warns against a permanent non-jury court
Paul Murphy spoke on 27 June 2023 about the Offences Against the State Act and the Special Criminal Court. He opposed establishing a permanent non-jury court and called for abolition or a public referendum.
Main argument
He told the Dáil the review of the Offences Against the State Act has produced a majority view that would legitimise a permanent non-jury court and strip away the jury right. He argued the so-called safeguards offered by the majority are mere window dressing and that jury abolition would institutionalise an injustice.
Evidence and procedural concerns
Murphy criticised the review for recommending retention of Garda "belief" evidence that someone is a member of a terrorist organisation or criminal gang as proof of membership. He said Garda evidence can be contradicted by video and other material, which a jury of ordinary people can fairly assess but which a non-jury court cannot scrutinise in the same way.
Minority report and empirical critique
He highlighted a minority report in the review that, in his words, concluded the majority recommendations lacked adequate empirical evidence and comparative analysis. He suggested the majority reached the conclusion the establishment wanted, rather than one supported by data.
Human rights objections
Murphy noted a range of human rights and civil liberties bodies oppose replacement of the Special Criminal Court with any permanent non-jury court. He listed the ICCL, Amnesty International, the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission and the UN Special Rapporteur as critics calling for abolition.
Democratic remedy proposed
If the government will not abolish the court, Murphy urged a referendum so the public can decide. He said he is confident the people would reject a permanent non-jury court and warned the proposed change is about expanding state powers to silence or jail political opponents.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
Since we last debated this last year, the long-awaited review of the Offences Against the State Act has been published. This was the fig leaf that Sinn Fein used to justify abstaining on the vote to renew the Court, as opposed to their traditional correct position of opposing this Court, and that the Government and most of the Opposition cited in voting for it. The Review has now recommended that the Act should be repealed, and with that this Court would be abolished. Yes, here we are again, another motion to renew it for another year that will be nodded along by the Government, and most of the Opposition will go along with it, and some may abstain. Unfortunately, the majority opinion of the Review is also to turn what was sold to the public 50 years ago as an emergency Court to combat the IRA into a permanent institution of injustice. It seems all the majority really had a problem with is the ad hoc way a supposedly emergency, anti-terrorist, non-jury Court mission-crept into adjudicating on more and more cases. Its solution is therefore to legitimise the abolition of the fundamental human right to trial by a jury of your peers, by making it official and permanent, and to add a few minor safeguards as window dressing to take the blatantly unjust look off of it. The justification most commonly given is the need to protect juries from intimidation. But in this day and age of video evidence, of remote technology, there are so many ways that juries could be anonymised and protected from identification short of abolishing them. This is not necessary anymore, and in truth never really was. The majority report also recommends maintaining the claimed belief evidence of a Garda that someone is a member of a terrorist organisation or criminal gang, as evidence that they are in fact a member. Anyone involved in the criminal law will tell you that guards lie in court. They do so regularly, but at least those lies are open to challenge in a jury court. Contradictory evidence, such as the video evidence that vindicated the defendants in the Jobstown trial and exposed the Garda's coordinated lies, can be introduced to a fair-minded jury of ordinary people, rather than a hand-picked trio of upper-class establishment judges. It is not only us that are saying the majority report and the review is wrong. There is a host of human rights and civil liberties organisations in Ireland and internationally demanding that the Special Criminal Court be abolished and not replaced by any new non-jury court. They include the ICCL, Amnesty International, the state's own Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism. There was also a minority report within the review, a report which eviscerates the threadbare arguments of the majority. They said that they, quote, do not believe that the recommendations contained in the majority report are supported by adequate empirical evidence or sufficiently extensive comparative analysis. In other words, the majority came to the conclusion that the government and the establishment in this country wanted, regardless of the evidence. It is important to ask the question, why does the state want this power? It is because it wants to make sure that if it has threats to the political and economic status quo, now or in the future, that it has a ready-made, dip-locked court on hand to lock people up on the say-so of a guard. This is not about combating organized crime or terrorism, it never was. It is about maximizing the repressive powers of the Irish state and maximizing its ability to jail potential opponents that might threaten the status quo. Nobody who supports freedom of organization, freedom of expression or any of the basic principles of democracy and civil liberties should vote in favour of this motion or in favour of creating a new permanent non-jury court. If the government will not do the right thing and simply abolish the special criminal court, then the government should actually allow the people to decide, should hold a referendum on whether a permanent non-jury court should be established. I am confident that the answer they will get will be a resounding no. et alun
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
