Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) (Amendment) Bill 2025: Report and Final Stages
Dail Éireann — 2026-05-20
============================================================

Jim O'Callaghan (FF), Dublin Bay South

I thank the Deputy for the amendment. I assure him he can continue to commemorate whatever patriot dead he wishes, now or in years to come, and if this provision is enacted, it will have no impact on what he seeks to do. It is important to point out the type of terrorist activity that is going to be covered by this legislation. Earlier I gave the example of what happened in the Bataclan in 2015. I am sure the Deputy will agree that if somebody had sought to encourage and incite the individuals who carried out that atrocity to do so, those atrocities and the act of the person seeking to incite people to get involved in them should be criminalised.
If we look at the provision contained in this section he is seeking to remove, it only applies in certain circumstances. It has to be with the intention of inciting persons to commit terrorist activity. Nobody is suggesting that by going to a commemoration or remembering patriot dead that someone is seeking to incite others to commit terrorist activity. As well as this, someone has to distribute or publish messages to the public that incite them, or could reasonably be construed as inciting persons, to commit terrorist activity or glorifies terrorist activity, and it has to give rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of terrorist activity could thereby result.
The section as set out is markedly different to the example the Deputy gave a few moments ago. He highlighted how Kneecap was prosecuted in the United Kingdom because of the fact they were wearing emblems that were suggestive of them being supportive of a prescribed organisation. The first thing to point out is that they were acquitted. There is also absolutely no provision in Irish law at present, or that will be introduced by this legislation, that would come anywhere close to what is section 13 of the UK Terrorism Act 2000. That Act, as I said, makes it an offence for somebody to display a logo or to wear an emblem that gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that they are member of, or a supporter of, a prescribed organisation. It is astonishing legislation that certainly does not in any way exist in this jurisdiction nor would any Government seek to put it forward. We are dealing with a completely different situation to what has arisen in the past. I give the Deputy an assurance that the types of issues he is concerned about are not issues that will be covered by the legislation.
As I said earlier, the purpose of the legislation is to give full effect to the 2017 directive. Article 5 of the directive requires that public provocation to commit terrorism be criminalised. As mentioned on previous Stages, the amendment of section 4A of the Act does not create new or separate offence of public provocation by way of glorification nor does it make it unduly vague and expensive. Rather, the amendment clarifies that the scope of the public provocation offence is such that it can include public provocation by way of glorification of terrorism. This clarification stems from the requirement of Article 5 of the directive. The clarification does not change a substantive offence, and provocation by way of glorification is encompassed in the offence as it currently stands. Its explicit reference now in the amendment is an exercise clarity and compliance.
The amendment also reformulates the wording of the offence provision more generally to give clarity to the elements necessary for a prosecution of public provocation. This, in fact, safeguards the offence from abuse and misuse. I will not read section 4A as set out in the principal Act but the revised section 4A, as proposed by the Bill, states:
For the purposes of this Part, a person publicly provokes the commission of a terrorist offence if—
(a) he or she, with the intention of inciting persons to commit a terrorist activity, distributes or publishes, or causes to be distributed or published, by any means (including via the internet) to the public or a section of the public a message—
(i) inciting, or that could reasonably be construed as inciting, persons to commit a terrorist activity, or
(ii) that glorifies (including by praise or celebration) a terrorist activity,
and
(b) such distribution or publication gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that the commission of a terrorist activity could thereby result.
The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has confirmed the revised text affords greater protection to someone exercising their right to freedom of expression than the current section 4A, which simply refers to the publication of a message. It does not see anything about the nature or content of the message. The only thing that makes the publication of the message criminal under the current section 4A is the intent of the publisher. Proof of this on its own will not be sufficient to secure a conviction under the reframed section 4A.
The proposed section 4A contains two new safeguards that are not in the current version of section 4A. First, the message itself must reasonably constitute an incitement to commit a terrorist act and, second, the publication of the message must give rise to a reasonable apprehension that someone might as a result of such publication commit a terrorist act. The use of a reasonableness test is an objective legal standard used in law to prevent against arbitrary or irrational interpretation, assessing circumstances against a hypothetical reasonable person's response or action.
I assure the Deputy that the concern he has about section 3, which he is seeking to remove, is unfounded. He will not find a situation arising where people who are commemorating patriot dead or attending protests will find themselves being prosecuted on the basis they are trying to incite a terrorist act. However, if there are people who are trying to incite naive impressionable young people to commit terrorist activity and that subsequently happens, as we have seen previously, those people should be held liable for it, as was the case in the Bataclan. We have seen elsewhere in Europe examples of where serious terrorist actions have taken place and the people who have incited them and are behind them deserve to be prosecuted and convicted as much as the individuals who carried out the acts.

---

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/dail/2026-05-20/debate/main
Retrieved: 2026-09-28T05:50:47+00:00
Sitting date: 2026-05-20