I move the resolution, a Cheann Comhairle.
The resolution before the Dáil seeks approval for the continuance in
operation of those sections of the Offences against the State (Amendment)
Act 1998 which would otherwise cease to be in operation after 30 June next.
Deputies will be aware that this legislation was enacted in the aftermath
of the Omagh bombing in August 1998, a dreadful atrocity which claimed 29
innocent lives and injured over 200 people. The attack at Omagh was a
callous act of mass murder aimed at undermining the then developing peace
process. If anything, it brutality galvanised the already strong desire of
both communities on this island for a shared future based on peace and
democracy.
It is a testament to the resolve of those parties who supported the peace
process that not only did it survive this attack but it flourished and
great advances have been made in normalising politics in Northern Ireland.
We must never forget, however, the suffering of so many people who were
bereaved by the mindless criminality of the very few.
Recognising the exceptional nature of the measures contained in the 1998
Act, it was decided that certain sections of the Act should be revisited
annually by the Oireachtas. The purpose is to allow the Oireachtas to
decide whether the current circumstances justify the continued operation of
these sections. I have no doubt that their continued operation is
justified and I will outline my reasons to the House presently.
To support consideration of the need for the renewal of these sections of
the Act, I am required to lay a report on their operation before both
Houses prior to the resolutions being moved. The report, which I laid
before the House on 13 June 2011, covers the period since the last such
report was prepared in June 2010 to 31 May 2011.
The clear message from the Report is that the relevant sections of the Act
continue to be of significant value to the Gardaí in tackling the threat
from terrorism. Taking into account the provisions of the Act, the numbers
of occasions on which certain provisions have been used and the current
security environment, the Garda authorities consider that the Act continues
to be one of the most important tools available to them in the ongoing
fight against terrorism.
The inevitable conclusion must be that the provisions are necessary to
counter the threat from terrorism and their continued availability to An
Garda Síochána is warranted.
The sad fact is that there is an ongoing threat, both in this jurisdiction
and in Northern Ireland, from a variety of subversive paramilitary groups.
The Real IRA, the Continuity IRA and other groups remain resolutely
committed to violence in pursuit of their aims. They continue to seek to
acquire and manufacture weapons and to plant explosive devices without any
concern for life or limb. In particular, they have targeted members of the
security forces in Northern Ireland. The recent, tragic murder of PSNI
Constable Ronan Kerr is a stark demonstration of their ongoing murderous
intent.
Put plainly, these are gangs of criminal terrorists. I say ‘criminal’
because these groups are involved in a wide range of organised criminal
activities and I believe that in many cases their continued commitment to
the so-called ‘cause’ is centred more on preserving their personal
positions. These groups represent nothing but their own warped views of
the world. Their actions display nothing but contempt for the peace-loving
majority on this island.
The 1998 Act was brought in following the Omagh bombing and was mainly
targeted at ‘domestic’ terrorist groups. However, we cannot ignore the
threat from international terrorism and we should not imagine that Ireland
is completely immune from it. We certainly must not be complacent in
responding to it. The Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005
enables the application against international terrorist groups and
individuals of the Offences against the State Acts, including the
provisions under consideration today.
To return to the provisions which are the subject of the resolution, the
Report I laid before the House is based on data received from the Garda
authorities and it shows the following.
Section 2 was used on 48 occasions.
Section 2 provides that where, in any proceedings for membership of an
unlawful organisation, an accused failed to answer or gave false or
misleading answers to any question, the court may draw such inferences as
appear proper. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely
on an inference drawn from such a failure.
Section 3 was used on 12 occasions.
This section provides that, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful
organisation, an accused must give notification of an intention to call a
person to give evidence on his behalf, unless the court permits otherwise.
Section 7 was used on 24 occasions.
This section makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances
giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for
a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of
specified firearms or explosives offences.
Section 8 was used once.
This section makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information
which is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the
commission of serious offences.
Section 9 was used on 63 occasions.
This section makes it an offence to withhold information which a person
believes might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of a
serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of
another person for such an offence.
Section 10 was used on 12 occasions.
This section extends the maximum period of detention permitted under
Section 30 of the Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours,
but only on the authorisation of a judge of the District Court. The judge
must be satisfied, on the application of a Garda not below the rank of
Superintendent, that the further detention is necessary for the proper
investigation of the offence concerned and that the investigation is being
conducted diligently and expeditiously. The person being detained is
entitled to be present in court during the application and to make, or to
have made, submissions on his behalf.
In the reporting period in question, an extension under section 10 was
applied for, and granted, in 12 cases and charges resulted in six of those
cases.
Section 11 was used on 5 occasions.
This section allows a judge of the District Court to permit the re-arrest
and detention of a person in respect of an offence for which he was
previously detained under Section 30 of the Offences against the State Act
but released without charge. This further period must not exceed 24 hours
and can only be authorised in circumstances where the judge is satisfied
on
information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána that further
information has come to the knowledge of the Garda Síochána about that
person’s suspected participation in the offence.
Section 14 is a procedural section which makes the offences created under
sections 6 to 9 and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes
of Part V of the 1939 Act. The sum total of the uses of sections 6 to 9
and 12 was 88.
I would now like to turn to those sections of the 1998 Act that were not
used in the period under report, namely, sections 4, 6, 12 and 17.
Section 4 amends Section 3 of the Offences against the State (Amendment)
Act 1972 to expand the definition of ‘conduct’ that can be considered as
evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation. Specifically,
‘conduct’ can include matters such as ‘movements, actions, activities, or
associations on the part of the accused’. This change simply aligns the
definition of conduct in the 1972 Act with the reference to movements,
actions, activities or associations used in Section 2 of the 1998 Act.
Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an
organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under
the Offences against the State Act 1939.
Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another
person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such
training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.
Section 17 builds on a provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 which
empowers a court, in its discretion, to order the forfeiture of any
property in the possession of a convicted person which was used, or
intended to be used, to facilitate the commission of an offence under that
Act. The effect of Section 17 is, in the case of a person convicted of
specified offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives,
and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act, to
require the court to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is
satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such
an order.
Although these sections were not used in the period under report, I am sure
Deputies will agree that their continued availability is essential to an
effective response to the threat from terrorist groups.
A Cheann Comhairle, I would be delighted to be able to inform Members that
these provisions are no longer considered necessary. However, that would
necessitate a very significant change of attitude on the part of these
criminal, terrorist groups. In the absence of such a change I could not as
Minister for Justice and Equality recommend to the Dáil that valuable
legislative provisions be allowed to lapse.
I consider that the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act should remain in
operation for a further 12 months and I commend this resolution to the
House.