Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Remaining Stages Seanad Éireann — 2026-06-30 ============================================================ Alice-Mary Higgins (IND), National University of Ireland While the scenario the Minister gave is the intention to set off a bomb, which comes into the different question of there being a whole other set of offences there in terms of intent to endanger life and so forth, the scenarios are things like criminal damage to property. Criminal damage to property is the kind of thing such as vandalism, which technically comes under criminal damage to property. Of course, it is our duty in all our laws to protect life and so forth where there is a danger to a population or an intention to cause harm in that sense. However, criminal damage to property is an offence under this Bill where the criminal damage is attached to an attempt to unduly compel "a government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing an act". I am not fully assured as to what that actually means. Let us look back to the suffragettes. The suffragettes engaged in direct action protest in an attempt to compel the introduction of the right to vote. We commemorated them all a few years ago and marked that period of time. Is it the case that such activities by the suffragettes can be designated as terrorist activities and then attract penalties? I am not resisting the view that people would have penalties attached where they have damaged property and so forth, but these much more severe penalties are attached to when something is designated as a terrorist activity. In terms of climate action, for example, this is an area where we have seen the proscribing of climate activity by groups. There has been a very strong push in the United States and elsewhere to criminalise those who are engaging in direct action in relation to the climate. It is a form of protest that comes with penalties and people often do not accept those penalties. Now, however, the penalty is being massively escalated. I am, therefore, concerned. I would like clarification on the criminal damage issue and how that is going to pan out. With respect to the phrase "in itself", it should be removed. While it may have been in the previous legislation, we are in a climate now where we have seen extremely intense weaponisation of anti-terrorism laws in a number of states, including the UK and US as we have recorded, but it is a measure that has been used in many cases. I still do not know the exact position as regards how we relate to the question of something that is an offence here that is an offence in another country. The Minister said we have these sets of intents, but the intents he is going back to are all in relation to a terrorist offence. I am still not clear on the issue of actions being taken. The Minister said he did not want to make it a defence. I had considered that approach. I was trying to avoid doubt in the defence and, similarly, the Minister described how he had gone back and forth looking at different approaches to how we ensure the effect. I accept his bona fides that it is not his intention that this be used in relation to persons who are acting against repressive regimes or, indeed, illegal occupation, but I see in the Bill the potential for it to be used in such a way. The thin layer we have of protection is the Attorney General. The Attorney General's advice is not available to Members of the Oireachtas. The Attorney General is only an adviser to Government. Attorneys General may be under a particular Government and under all kind of pressures, but they are effectively responsive to Government. There is, therefore, a danger of there being a lack of transparency in relation to those issues, for example, if there is a situation where there is significant pressure from the United States in relation to a matter or action or set of actions or an organisation or entities the United States wishes to see prosecuted in the terrorism frame. In such circumstances, we will not be privy to how those decisions are being weighed up by the Attorney General and the extent to which political pressure or influence may be being exercised in that weighing up by the Attorney General in respect of his advice to Cabinet because he is giving advice to Government, not us. That is a bit of an opaque solution to a concern, which, as the Minister said, has been legitimately flagged the whole way through this process. As such, I wonder about the "in defence" piece as an approach. I would also like clarification from the Minister on the issue of criminal damage. It is not the case, as the Minister described, that if we removed the words "of itself", somebody would say they were engaged in protest and, therefore, that they could not be prosecuted. I do not believe that is how the provision would then read. The Bill would state that these are not terrorist offences. While terrorist offences could still be looked at, it would mean that those elements and activities - participation in a strike, protest or advocacy - could not be used as evidence of terrorist activity. Now, the Bill states such activity "of itself" cannot be used, which means it could be part of evidence. It just states they cannot be used. It does not say that a person who does these things is immune from prosecution under the terrorist activities Act. That is not what it says. You can go ahead and use actual evidence of a person engaging in or promoting or inciting terrorist activity rather than saying this person was also on strike or took part in a union protest or did other things, and this builds the case of them having an intent to destabilise. That is why I am concerned about how that provision could be abused. The safer approach would be to remove the phrase "of itself". --- 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