Today marks the 30th anniversary of the signing into being of the Special Criminal Court, set up under the Offences Against the State Act. It was considered necessary at that time to deal with the spill-over of violence from the conflict in Northern Ireland. Following the signing of the Belfast Agreement, it was one of the main provisions of the Act to be subjected to review.
From 1972 only judges or former judges, drawn from different levels of the judiciary, have sat on the court. Since 1986 only serving judges have sat on it.
Its main difference from the Central Criminal Court, whose practice and procedure it is bound to follow "as far as practicable", is that it has no jury and the three judges act as both judge and jury.
While set up to deal with paramilitary-linked crime, the court has also, especially in recent years, tried people with no political or paramilitary connections accused of serious offences. Among such cases were those charged with the murder of Veronica Guerin and individuals thought to be connected with them who were charged with drug offences.
In 1994 Stephen "Rossi" Walsh was convicted in the Special Criminal Court of arson at a public house, and in 1997 Joseph Kavanagh was convicted of involvement in the kidnapping of the National Irish Bank executive, Mr James Lacey. Neither had any paramilitary connections.
Three of those accused of the manslaughter of a drug addict and AIDS victim, Mr Josie Dwyer, were tried there, while their nine co-accused were tried on the same charges in the ordinary courts.
The decision to try someone in this court is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, and this decision was challenged last year on behalf of Joseph Kavanagh before the UN Committee on Human Rights. That committee found that this process, without any explanation or provision for review, violated Mr Kavanagh's right to equality before the law.
This background, as well as the context of the Good Friday agreement and the dramatic reduction in paramilitary-related crimes since 1994, was considered by the committee reviewing the Offences Against the State Act.
Its majority concluded that the continued threat posed by paramilitaries was sufficient to justify the court, subject to two qualifications. These are that the necessity for the court be kept under regular review, and that the Oireachtas would enact amending legislation so that members of the Defence Forces could not sit as judges, and the judges who did sit enjoyed the same guarantees of tenure, salary and independence as other judges.
Referring to the power of the Director of Public Prosecutions to refer cases to this court, the majority of the committee considered that this, too, should remain, while putting in place a review mechanism.
Such a mechanism could be a review of the decision by a serving Supreme Court judge, with the involvement of an independent counsel. The majority considered that this could meet the objections of the UN Committee on Human Rights.
However, a minority of the committee, led by its chairman, Mr Justice Anthony Hederman, opposed the continuation of the Special Criminal Court. Mr Justice Hederman, Prof William Binchy and Prof Dermot Walsh submitted their own views and recommendations in a minority report on the court, saying: "We consider that the arguments adduced in support of the very existence of the court do not stand up to scrutiny in the light of constitutional values and human rights norms."
They stated that resort to the Special Criminal Court was highly convenient from the point of view of the prosecution. Saying that no pressing case for the retention of the court had been made, they continued: "No other common-law jurisdiction has come to the conclusion that the risk of jury intimidation warrants non-jury trial in a special criminal court".
Referring to the threat from organised crime, they added: "It is not plausible to suggest that, in contrast to other common-law jurisdictions such as the United States of America, England and Australia, Irish social conditions are so perilous as to warrant dispensing with jury trial."
They had specific concerns about the power of the DPP to refer cases to this court, pointing out that he represents one side of an adversarial process.
They wrote: "The existence of the Special Criminal Court can best be explained, not by factually justified and specifically focused concerns relating to the risk of jury intimidation unique in the common-law world, but by the desire to use strong means to put down violent, politically motivated crime. That desire is understandable but the means are, unfortunately, inconsistent with the values of a modern liberal democratic society . . ."