![]() Ms Harrison expressed disappointment the debate surrounding the SCC has primarily revolved around two poles jury or non-jury trial, with “little political discussion” of intermediate alternatives for protecting juries. The SCC’s “embeddedness and de-facto permanency in our criminal justice system” are among several features of the OASA legislation that require attention, she wrote.Ī situation has arisen where emergency powers have “become normalised” and this required that “even greater care” be taken to ensure the SCC’s expansion is not to the detriment of the rights of accused persons, she submitted. In her submission to the Peart review, barrister Alice Harrison, author of an award-winning book on the SCC, The Special Criminal Court: Practice and Procedure, advanced several proposals for reform. The position now involves the same panel deciding what evidence is admissible to it before going on to decide guilt or innocence. Some critics want abolition of the court while others favour reformed procedures, including introducing anonymised juries and having different panels of SCC judges decide issues of disclosure and guilt/innocence. The SCC has a high conviction rate, averaging more than 90 per cent annually. Most of its current caseload is derived from the activities of organised crime gangs and the volume of those led to a decision to establish a second SCC in 2016. The number of terrorist offences dealt with by the SCC has fallen substantially, from 24 in 2015 to one in 2018, two in 2019 and one in 2020. The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, enacted against a background of gang violence, provided for new offences including directing or participating in organised crime gang activities to be dealt with by the SCC, unless the DPP directs otherwise. The number of cases before the SCC effectively trebled between 20, rising from 45 to 136 cases. ![]() Recommendations of the Law Reform Commission on jury service and juror protection have also not been implemented. The Hederman review made a series of recommendations in 2002 for reform, but few have been implemented. The Peart review is only the second review of the SCC. Its report is expected to be provided to the Minister for Justice within weeks, perhaps next month. Submissions from the ICCL were among several made to the Peart review, established by the Government in February 2021 to examine all aspects of the Offences Against the State Acts (OASA), the legislation underpinning the court’s operation, having regard to factors including the current threat posed by domestic/international terrorism and organised crime, the duty to deliver a fair and effective criminal justice systems and Ireland’s domestic and international law obligations. The fact that the SCC may make the prosecution of some offences easier is not a justification for it continuing, it said. The use of the SCC, according to the ICCL, does not solve the issue of witnesses having to testify at such trials, meaning it is arguable the threat posed by subversive groups and crime gangs is still there. The emphasis should be on intelligence-led and community-based policing, coupled with improved witness and jury protection, rather than “undermining the rule of law” by continuing the SCC, it said.Īlternatives to the SCC are available and are used in many countries – such as anonymous juries, screening juries from public view, special protection of juries during trial and using video links to juries at different locations, it has stated. The ICCL has argued that if gardaí are to effectively police they must be placed in a position to fully enforce the existing criminal laws, especially in cases where attempts are made to intimidate key witnesses. ![]() The concerns include the effective permanency of the court in non-emergency circumstances deprivation of a jury trial the role of the Director of Public Prosecutions in directing, irrespective of the offence, cases towards it rather than the ordinary courts and different rules governing the disclosure and admissibility of evidence which mean the same panel of SCC judges decide on the admissibility of evidence before deciding guilt or innocence. The continued existence of the SCC has been criticised over decades by some politicians and national and international human rights groups including the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, the UN Human Rights Group and Amnesty International. ![]() While the numbers appearing before it in connection with subversive offences dramatically declined in recent decades, the remit of the court, due to concerns about potential intimidation of juries by organised crime gangs, has been expanded to include so-called gangland offences.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |