тхеодоре кацзынски
Well-Known Member
Much talk of this over the weekend as FG attack SF for their plans to abolish it if ever elected, FG on the other hand have pledged, if reelected, to institute a second such court to clear up the backlog of cases currently before it.
Article 38, 3.1 of the constitution has it that
"Special courts may be established by law for the trial of offences in cases where it may be determined in accordance with such law that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order."
hence the legal basis for a court that flies in the face of normal practise whereby one is tried in front of a jury of one's peers. Primarily used in the past for dealing with Republicans, since the GFA the court has been used more and more for organised crime, while still trying dissident Republicans for their various misdeeds.
FG are linking Thomas 'Slab' Murphys conviction at the court to SFs desire to get rid of it yet the court is also opposed by a host of bodies including the ICCL, the UN Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International, amongst others.
So the question of course is, should we keep a special criminal court for dealing with gangland/dissident crime? The argument for retention is that it is necessary in cases where jury intimidation may be an issue, while the argument against is that it is only necessary where there is a real threat to the state and gangland crime, as awful as it can be, does not constitute such a threat.
Article 38, 3.1 of the constitution has it that
"Special courts may be established by law for the trial of offences in cases where it may be determined in accordance with such law that the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice, and the preservation of public peace and order."
hence the legal basis for a court that flies in the face of normal practise whereby one is tried in front of a jury of one's peers. Primarily used in the past for dealing with Republicans, since the GFA the court has been used more and more for organised crime, while still trying dissident Republicans for their various misdeeds.
FG are linking Thomas 'Slab' Murphys conviction at the court to SFs desire to get rid of it yet the court is also opposed by a host of bodies including the ICCL, the UN Human Rights Commission and Amnesty International, amongst others.
So the question of course is, should we keep a special criminal court for dealing with gangland/dissident crime? The argument for retention is that it is necessary in cases where jury intimidation may be an issue, while the argument against is that it is only necessary where there is a real threat to the state and gangland crime, as awful as it can be, does not constitute such a threat.
