“The Offences Against the State Acts and the Special Criminal Court have served us, and continue to serve us, well in tackling subversives and organised crime and fulfilling a key role in our criminal justice system.

“And next week I will again seek support from all parties in the Oireachtas for the renewal of certain provisions of the Acts for another year, as is committed to in the Programme for Government.

“Given how well these pillars of our criminal justice system have worked over many decades, any proposals for reform must be thoroughly considered and treated with the utmost care.

“That is why I am very thankful to the Chairperson of the review group, Mr Justice Michael Peart, for leading this important work and I very much appreciate the dedicated effort and input of all the members.

“There is much to digest and reflect on in the majority’s package of recommendations and also in the perspective of the minority.

“As I have said, the Offences Against the State Acts have stood the test of time for 80 years and it is important that we take the time to consider carefully how best to proceed.

“With this in mind I have asked my officials to consult with other relevant departments and the Garda Commissioner, the Office of the DPP and the Courts Service to inform the preparation of a substantive response for consideration by Government in due course.

“I have also asked them to consult with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission to ensure that a broad human rights perspective is captured.

“However, it is absolutely vital that we continue to annually renew the relevant provisions of the Offences Against the State Acts pending these detailed considerations, and I look forward to bringing motions before the Houses in this regard next week.”

“The Special Criminal Court eliminates the very real risk to jurors and potential jurors posed by subversives and organised criminal groups.

“And, while it is of course the case that trial by jury must be preserved to the greatest extent possible, we cannot ignore the threat posed to the security of the State by such groups. It is also the case that the Special Criminal Court is only used in limited circumstances for the most serious criminal cases, with 25 cases tried there in 2020 and 2021.

“The majority’s assessment is that there is, and will continue to be, an ongoing need for a special court, as permitted by the Constitution, to try a portion of the most serious criminal offences in certain limited and exceptional circumstances. Such an assessment requires serious consideration in the context of continuing to safeguard the security of the State and our citizens.

“I note that the majority has not simply recommended that a standing non-jury court be legislated for but has also devised a suite of proposals in relation to how it might operate to ensure that the rights of accused persons are fully respected, and to support transparency and promote public confidence.

“Again, these proposals will require detailed consideration in the period ahead. My priority will be to safeguard the operation of the criminal justice system against those who would seek to undermine it. Community safety must be at the centre of all our policies.”

“While there is consensus among the Review Group members that the Acts should be repealed there is some divergence on what should replace them particularly in relation to a special court, belief evidence and proscription. This does not take from the value of the comprehensive work undertaken by the Review Group. Their task was not an easy one; it involved grappling with the complex question of where to strike the balance between measures to counter the activities of ruthless paramilitary and organised crime groups with the right of an accused person to trial by jury. These are matters on which individual experts may hold different views as indeed was the case with the last comprehensive review – the 2002 Hederman review.

“I note that the minority, while not endorsing the recommendation of the majority for a standing non-jury court, accepts that recourse to juryless courts may be warranted in the interests of justice where there is ‘a real and present danger of jury intimidation.”

“In parallel with the consultative process I will be discussing with my officials the work already in train in my department in relation to juries to identify any additional measures - short of non-jury trials - which might in certain cases mitigate the risk of intimidation or other interference.

"I also intend, having regard to the concern of the majority and the minority in relation to the limited data available in respect of the operation of the Special Criminal Court and the extent of jury and witness intimidation, to engage with An Garda Síochána, the DPP and the Courts Service to identify what improvements could be made in the collation and publication of data relating to these matters to support independent scrutiny and promote public confidence.”

“I would like to reiterate my gratitude to the Chairperson Mr Justice Peart and the members for their commitment over the last two years. While its work has taken somewhat longer than anticipated at the outset, it is clear that the Group approached its task with rigour – commissioning research and analysis and undertaking extensive consultations with State agencies, other experts in this jurisdiction and elsewhere, civil society and the wider public to inform its deliberations. I thank all those who took the time to contribute to the Group’s work.”

---

Notes