Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-30 ============================================================ Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South I thank Senator Higgins for her amendment. We are discussing amendments Nos. 20 to 24, inclusive, and the first, in particular, seeks to amend what is section 6(5) of the 2005 Act. The first amendment put forward by Senator Higgins is to remove the words “of itself” from the new definition going into subsection (5). It is important to point out that the new subsection (5) does not differ that much from the old subsection (5) in what is section 6 of the legislation, and if we look at what we are dealing with in terms of that subsection, it reads "the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout or other industrial action, is not of itself a sufficient basis for inferring that the person is carrying out an act with the intention specified ... of terrorist activity". For 20 years we have had the term “of itself” contained within section 6(5) of the 2005 Act and it has not given rise to the issues the Senator is concerned about. With the second issue the Senator raised in respect of amendment No. 19, she expressed concern about the reference to “unduly compelling.” Again, it is important to note that in the 2005 legislation, the definition of “terrorist activity” means an act that is committed in or outside the State and is committed with the intention of "unduly compelling a Government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act”. Obviously the Senator is not precluded from raising issues of concern to her in respect of this legislation as it goes through the House, but it is instructive to note that those two terms, “of itself” and “unduly compelling”, have been in our legislation for more than 20 years and they have not given rise to the issues of concern she has mentioned. The inclusion of “of itself” in the subsection I have referred to means that the specific act that a person has engaged in, whether protest, advocacy or dissent, when considered entirely on its own, is not grounds to infer attention to commit a terrorist act. However, if we were to remove “of itself”, no doubt a smart and shrewd lawyer would be able to state that, if somebody was involved in strike action but also in quite clearly terrorist action, the provision could not apply because it says in the legislation that, if anyone is involved in any strike action, that cannot constitute grounds for inferring they are doing terrorist activity. The reason we put in the words “of itself” is to ensure it is the specific act itself that recognises that they cannot be prosecuted because they are involved in that activity of itself. If they do something else, obviously that can be taken into account. I oppose amendment No. 19 because it would reduce that specificity and make the text less clear. The Senator’s further amendments seek to introduce new subsections which would variously provide that criticism of a state that is breaching international law or opposition to the occupation by a state of a territory without legal basis cannot be construed as grounds for intent to commit a terrorist act, or intent to unduly compel a government to perform an act if that act is necessary to comply with international law, or cannot be construed as intent to destabilise the economic structures of a state where such destabilisation will arise from that state's breaches of international law. I emphasise again the protections which exist in Ireland for freedom of expression, to which I referred previously in response to other amendments the Senator put forward. The “for the avoidance of doubt” provision within a statutory regime is inappropriate and confusing. Criticism of or opposition to a state for whatever reason is not evidence of intent to commit a terrorist act under this or any domestic legislation. People can continue to criticise or oppose a state and that is not going to be regarded as intention to commit a terrorist act. As such, these amendments are redundant and potentially not in compliance with the terrorist directive. Also, if we grant that there are legitimate concerns here that a person engaged in activity against an oppressive or tyrannical regime could be convicted under this legislation, which, as I say, I doubt is possible - in fact, I believe it is not possible - the provisions in section 6(6) of the principal Act address such concerns while allowing for the proper transposition of the directive. This provision, as I mentioned earlier, provides that the consent of the Attorney General is required in cases where a person: ...is charged with an offence ... in or outside the State with the intention of ... unduly compelling the government of a state ... to perform or abstain from performing an act, or ... seriously destabilising or destroying the ... political, constitutional, economic or social structures of such a state. This provision was introduced to address precisely the issue the Senator’s amendments seek to tackle. It affords the only practical way to give effect and be faithful to the directive while at the same time avoiding the possibility that persons acting legitimately against a repressive state would be prosecuted in the courts in a manner repugnant to our values, which is to vest in the Attorney General the same function he or she exercised under the Official Secrets Act. The mechanism chosen in the principal Act, after months of debate in government and the Houses, was to give the Attorney General’s approval the status of a condition precedent to a prosecution going on under this legislation. I believe that is a better approach than the problematic statement that it would be a defence for anybody planning a terrorist act to show that the state against which he or she plotted was in breach of international law. We would not accept that a person accused of planning to set off a bomb in a public place in such a state would have a full defence in law because he or she persuaded the court that that state was in breach of international law. The Attorney General's intervention represents the only plausible solution to this dilemma and, as such, I cannot accept these amendments. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/seanad/2026-06-30/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:55:07+00:00 Sitting date: 2026-06-30