Elaine Loughlin: Time to give special attention to the need for a Special Criminal Court
Elaine Loughlin: Back in 1956, Lord Devlin colourfully described juries as 'the lamp which shows that freedom lives'. The Special Criminal Court has dimmed this light and the political will does exist to reignite it.
It's now time to put politics aside to have an honest and credible debate about the need for the Special Criminal Court.
The juryless court was set up 49 years ago this week as an emergency and temporary measure to counteract what was a very real and existential threat from terrorist organisations to the State.
Since then, it has morphed into a convenient tool deployed by the DPP against suspected members of illegal organisations, but is increasingly used to deal with murders, money laundering and other offences committed by organised crime gangs.
Every year, the legislation is rolled out for renewal and each year it predictably passes through the Dáil because as long as gangland criminals and dissident Republicans exist, there will always be an easy argument for retaining the three-judge court, even if workarounds to allow for jury trials are possible.
It suits certain political agendas to paint an inaccurate picture of Sinn Féin being alone in calling for an end to the Special Criminal Court.
It also suits Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael to use it as a stick to beat Mary-Lou McDonald and her party with, even if question marks remain around Sinn Féin's motivation.
Solidarity-PBP TD Paul Murphy, who has raised significant civil liberties and human rights issues with the court, said the two establishment parties "think that they can do damage to Sinn Féin on the issue".
But in taking swipes at Sinn Féin, the Government parties have been side-stepping the substantive issue.
Numerous reviews, including one currently being carried out by Mr Justice Michael Peart, have been commissioned by successive governments, but overall there appears to be no great appetite to scrap the court which has been condemned by human rights organisations at home and abroad.
Successive justice ministers have trotted out the same line on the continued necessity for the temporary court, whether this has been their strongly held belief or a handy excuse to do nothing down the years is unclear.
It's also a seriously flawed argument given advances in technology which could be used to protect jurors from intimidation. If witnesses can be protected in the most serious cases, why can't the same be done for juries?
Just last week, Justice Minister Heather Humphreys said the court has "served us well" and remains "an important piece of the armoury in the State's protection of people".
Former justice minister Michael McDowell also believes there is "no question of getting rid of it at this stage", citing recent New IRA activity.
But the UN, Amnesty International, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) and members of the judiciary say the court denies the right to a fair trial and the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.
In a small jurisdiction such as Ireland, anonymity is hard to secure, but Judge Anthony Hederman said anonymous juries operating from a secure and secret location would stop intimidation..
"At some point, the theoretical risk of the possibility of jury intimidation becomes frankly implausible," the judge, who chaired an independent review of the Offences Against the State Act, said.
While the final review augured in favour of retaining the court, Judge Hederman, along with Professors Dermot Walsh and William Binchy, issued a minority report opposing the continuing use of the court, stating: "Jury trial is valuable, in spite of its inconvenience, because of deeper values relating to a liberal democracy. If a pressing case for the necessity of a special criminal court could be made out, we naturally would heed it, but in our view no such case has been proffered."
The lack of "checks and balances" on the DPP, which is not obliged to provide a reason for sending a person forward to the juryless court, has been criticised by the ICCL.
Ireland was a very different place in May 1972, when the current court was established.
The Government was under pressure both from the Opposition but also from the British Government to show that it was doing its part in taking action against elements in the south that were helping to keep violence in the north alive.
In the months prior there had been at least five cases where republicans had seen charges against them withdrawn by a judge or had been acquitted within minutes by a jury.
The front page put the situation in context as a report on five bomb blasts which had rocked Belfast and Derry shared the front page with the announcement of the creation of the court.
While then Labour leader Brendan Corish said the court had become necessary, he added that it was "an admission that the ordinary courts of law have broken down... we can only express the hope that this measure will be ended as soon as possible."
Although the court was initially set up to handle terrorism-related crime, its remit has been extended and it has been handling more organised crime cases after the Provisional IRA ceasefire in the 1990s.
This year, the court has dealt with a number of gangland murder cases, including the shooting of David Byrne at the Regency Hotel in 2016 and is due to hear the trial of four men accused of abducting and assaulting Quinn Industrial Holdings director Kevin Lunney at the end of this month.
Back in 1956, Lord Devlin colourfully described juries as "the lamp which shows that freedom lives".
The Special Criminal cCourt has dimmed this light and the political will does exist to reignite it.
"Where I go, fashion will follow me," was the response given by James Fitzgerald, the first Duke of Leinster when people questioned his decision to buy property to build a new home on the less fashionable southside of Dublin. Up until then, the north side of the Liffey was the most coveted address in the city.
Leinster House was designed by the Huguenot architect Richard Cassels and built between 1745 and 1747.
Fashionable society quickly began looking to relocate their families close to the Duke and his beautiful wife, Emily Lennox, daughter of the Duke of Richmond, and the northside quickly fell out of favour.
Tuesday: The weekly Dáil business kicks off with the usual Leaders' Questions in the afternoon – however, a debate on international travel afterward should be of interest to sunseekers.
Housing is set to remain firmly on the agenda again this week as Housing Minister Darragh O'Brien appears before the Housing Committee on Tuesday morning to discuss his proposed Land Development Agency Bill. He will be back in for a second grilling on the issue on Thursday morning.
Tuesday: The families of those killed in the Ballymurphy massacre are to appear before the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.
The rural independent group of TDs are bringing forward a motion on the establishment of a beef regulator, up for debate in the Dáil from 10am. The motion would empower the independent regulator to address, through statutory measures, the "structurally embedded power imbalance created by the de facto monopoly of existing processors and retailers".
The Joint Committee on European Union Affairs has asked Tánaiste Leo Varadkar to speak about the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta) which has caused more than a little headache for the Government, and in particular the Green Party, up to now.
It will be an early start for those interested in the vaccine rollout as a Dáil questions and answers session on the issue begins at 8.50am. Later in the day, the continuation of mandatory hotel quarantining will be debated when the Government brings forward a motion to keep Covid measures in place.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
