Sir, – Whatever one’s politics and one’s view of the “past”, some credit is due to Sinn Féin for highlighting the existence of the Special Criminal Court and whether or not it is an appropriate and effective means to administer justice in a modern democracy.
The existence of this court goes back to 1939 and the “Emergency”. The current incarnation of the Special Criminal Court dates from 1972, and since 2009 has been subject to a yearly renewal under the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009.
Is it an effective means to administer justice by a juryless court, and is it an appropriate deterrent to the types of crime it seeks to prevent? Nobody really knows for sure but the argument that it needs to stay in place to combat serious organised criminals tampering with jurors rings hollow in modern Ireland. To quote the Tánaiste, “this is not Mexico”.
Former president Mary Robinson has criticised the Special Criminal Court, saying that it was a “permanent fixture in the judicial structure” rather than an emergency court, and politicians as diverse as Charlie Flanagan and Pat Rabbitte have also expressed concerns about the court in the past.
It is therefore disappointing that The Irish Times would seek to follow the populist line in this debate (Editorial, "In defence of the imperfect", February 11th). While justice must always be served on those that seek to take away our liberties, it is equally important that justice is seen to be served, and that means in the full glare of the media in a trial by jury and not by some type of clandestine court that was set up at the start of the "Emergency".
After all, if an Irish citizen was convicted by a juryless court in another country or jurisdiction, there would be outrage here, and rightly so. – Yours, etc,
TOM McELLIGOTT,
Listowel,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – I have read with interest the debate about the Special Criminal Court.
In most jurisdictions in Australia, defendants can (and often do) opt to be tried by a judge instead of a jury. There is also growing support for the complete abolition of trials by jury, in part because erroneous verdicts (in either direction) are considered to be far more likely when a jury is involved. One proponent of this view is Malcolm McCusker, a barrister and former governor of Western Australia.
There are numerous problems with the jury system. For example, the reasons behind a jury’s verdict must be kept secret, which makes it impossible for anyone else to ascertain if they reached the verdict for the right reasons.
Additionally, it has been suggested that jurors are more susceptible to being influenced by emotion or bias, and far less likely to be able to understand complex expert witness testimony. Trials by jury also take significantly longer, which makes them much more expensive and results in huge backlogs of people waiting to be tried – and of course “justice delayed is justice denied”.
Overall, I am far from convinced that trial by jury is the fairest approach in general, never mind in the particular circumstances that result in trials being heard by the Special Criminal Court. – Yours, etc,
PAT DIGNAM,
Marcus Beach,
Queensland,
Australia.