Would the Minister indicate where the proposed remand institution for boy offenders will be sited? He indicated in his Second Reading speech where the remand institution for female offenders will be and I should like him to say where the one for boys will be.
Committee on Finance. - Criminal Justice Bill, 1960—Committee Stage.
Sections 1 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
We hope to have the remand section in St. Patrick's, in a separate wing.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, line 25, to delete "seventeen" and substitute "sixteen".
I regard this amendment as an important one of principle and I should be glad if the Minister would give it serious consideration. The Bill proposes that a person can be detained in St. Patrick's Institution if he is not less than seventeen or more than 21 years of age but, in fact, at the present time power is given to the courts to sentence youthful offenders to Borstal training from the age of 16 years. We are now taking away that power and making Borstal training available only for boys between the ages of 17 and 21 years. The purpose of this amendment, standing in my name and that of Deputy Ryan, is to leave the existing lower age figure as it stands. I think I can say that persons who are connected with the administration of the present criminal code, in the courts and elsewhere, agree with the view that it is desirable district justices should have discretion as to whether they should send a boy between the age of 16 and 17 years to a reformatory or to Borstal training.
In some circumstances it could be very undesirable that a certain type of offender over the age of 16 years should be sent to a reformatory with a lot of younger boys, and in certain circumstances youthful offenders might be much better off doing corrective training in a Borstal institution. Since 1941 district justices have had power to send boys up to the age of 17 years to a reformatory, but in that particular age group between 16 and 17 years the problems involved in individual cases may very frequently be of a marginal nature, and in individual cases Borstal sentences might be preferable to reformatory sentences. I feel it is undesirable that legislation should take power away from district justices to sentence a youthful offender, who is 16 years or over, to Borstal training and I would ask the Minister to consider this matter carefully because it is of the utmost importance.
The section in the Bill provides that a person within the age group of 17 to 21 years who is liable to be sentenced to a term of penal servitude or imprisonment may, in lieu, be sentenced to be detained in St. Patrick's. The amendment would extend this category to those 16 year olds who are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment. The only 16 year olds who, under existing law, are liable to be sentenced to imprisonment are that small category provided for in Section 102 (3) of the Children Act, 1908, which reads:
A young person shall not be sentenced to imprisonment for an offence or committed to prison in default of payment of a fine, damages, or costs, unless the court certifies that the young person is of so unruly a character that he cannot be detained in a place of detention provided under this Part of this Act, or that he is of so depraved a character that he is not a fit person to be so detained.
In effect, then, Section 13 of this Bill, as amended by the insertion of 16 for 17 years of age, would enable the Justices to send a boy of "unruly character" direct to St. Patrick's instead of to Mountjoy. The same boy if sentenced to imprisonment can be transferred to St. Patrick's by an Order of the Minister for Justice under Section 3 of the Prevention of Crime Acts, 1908. Therefore, the amendment accomplishes very little.
From the discussion here to-day, however, it appears that what the proposer of the amendment had in mind was a provision to enable the courts to commit overgrown, mature boys of 16 years of age to St. Patrick's instead of to an industrial school. The amendment does not accomplish that purpose. However, I am inclined, with some misgivings, to accept what the Deputies have in mind and I hope to have a suitable amendment drafted, which I shall move on Report Stage. I hope that I shall get that Stage, and if possible, the remaining Stages of the Bill, next Thursday so that this legislation can be brought into effect at a reasonably early date.
In view of the Minister's attitude, I certainly willingly withdraw this amendment. If it does not fit in with the intention Deputy Ryan and myself had when putting it down, I willingly withdraw it and look forward to getting an amendment from the Minister to achieve the purpose we had in mind, namely, to permit the district justices to have this discretion in regard to the type of boy which I and the Minister mentioned.
I hope to have that amendment circulated immediately after the discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, before subsection (2), to insert a new subsection as follows:—
"( ) Section 4 (1) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, is hereby amended by the addition thereto of the words ‘provided that in the case of a convicted person who is not less than sixteen nor more than twenty-one years of age he may be sentenced to detention and corrective training in Saint Patrick's Institution for a period not exceeding three years'."
The purpose of this amendment is to give express powers to the district justices to sentence a convicted person not less than 16 and not more than 21 years of age to corrective training in St. Patrick's institution. It seems to me that it is desirable that the Criminal Justice Act should be amended so that an express power of this sort can be given to district justices. At present, district justices under the Criminal Justice Act, 1951, can sentence a boy, or any person, to a sentence not in excess of 12 months, only if the matter is dealt with in a summary way. I feel it is likely that many of these youthful offenders may get themselves dealt with in a summary way by the district justice who would then merely have the power, as I understand the present legislation, to sentence them to 12 months and they will serve their sentence in St. Patrick's. I feel it is desirable that an express power should also be given to the district justice to impose in suitable cases a longer period of corrective training in St. Patrick's.
This amendment seeks to empower the district court to send a convicted offender between 16 and 21 years of age to St. Patrick's for a period not exceeding three years, the sentence to be one of "detention and corrective training". At present the district court may not sentence an offender to imprisonment for a longer period than 12 months, so that under Section 13 (1) of the Bill, as it stands, the district court can only sentence an offender between 17 and 21 years of age to detention in St. Patrick's for a maximum period of 12 months.
This amendment is unacceptable for the following reasons. First, such a radical extension of the district court's powers would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution which authorise the district court to try only minor offences. That is the main reason why the amendment could not possibly be accepted. Apart from this aspect, the power to deprive a near-adult of his liberties for a period of up to three years is not one which should be given, in the first instance, to a court of summary jurisdiction. The present law is that apart from one or two exceptional cases, the district court cannot sentence an offender to detention in St. Patrick's for a minimum "Borstal" term of two years, but must refer the case to the Circuit Criminal Court for consideration of the offender's suitability for such detention. This recognises the desirability of having a second opinion before a decision is taken to lock up a youth for such a long time.
The third reason is this. The question of empowering the district court to commit an offender direct to Borstal was specifically considered at Government level in 1949 in connection with the Criminal Justice Bill which was introduced that year. The Government of the day decided against having such a provision. These are the general reasons why it would not be possible to accept the amendments. I am sure the Deputy, being a lawyer himself, will immediately see that the district court could not deal with a case other than that which would be regarded as a minor case and could not impose a sentence of greater length than 12 months.
I appreciate the general principle which the Minister enunciated with regard to the powers of the district court and the powers it should exercise over the liberties of the citizen, but I feel we are dealing in this matter with a special case. We are dealing with, first of all, a special type of criminal with a special problem, and we are also dealing with the whole mechanism by which the youthful offender, if he does get the more serious sentence, can be released on parole, on licence, for good behaviour. He would be treated in a very different way from the ordinary criminal facing a serious sentence if he were to be tried summarily in the district court.
I feel the present system is a rather anomalous one by which the district justice refers the matter to the Circuit Court and the Circuit Court has only got power to send a person for this Borstal training for three years. The reality of the situation, as the Minister must know, particularly in Dublin, is that the district justice of the Children's Court is a person with a great deal of experience in these matters. I feel that the power given under this amendment—admittedly, a power of quite a considerable character— to the justices of the Children's Court would not be abused. I feel it would be one which would be beneficial to the individuals coming before the particular court and would also be beneficial to society. I made an error with regard to the district justices concerned. I mean the district justices who deal with these matters, particularly with these juvenile offenders, would have particular experience and would exercise the discretion given to them reasonably.
The matter is one obviously that has come up before. It was a matter that was considered before, as the Minister said, in 1949. I feel it might be worth while putting into practice for a period, particularly now that the Minister has got this power in regard to the parole system so that any grave abuse that might exist would be obviated.
I am sure the Deputy will agree that an offence that could be punishable by a sentence of three years would be far from being a minor offence. Anyhow, in Article 38 of the Constitution, which deals with the trial of offences, it is stated clearly in subsection (2) that minor offences may be tried by courts of summary jurisdiction. That is where we are tied up.
There is just one little point, if we are arguing the constitutionality of this. There must be a great number of offences that come before district justices which are committed by youthful offenders and which can be regarded as minor offences and in respect of which, from the point of view of society and the defendant, a sentence of Borstal training would be preferable to the present power of sentencing for a period of twelve months.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 5, to delete lines 37 to 45, inclusive.
Can we discuss amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together?
I think so. The purpose of these amendments is to take away the stigma of a prison sentence from Borstal training. At the present time, the Borstal institution has been moved up and is now a wing of Mountjoy. That is the position, but, in addition, the prison regulations apply to the treatment, care and training in St. Patrick's Institution. I think it would be most desirable if the prison regulations, as such, did not apply to St. Patrick's. It is a separate institution. It should be physically a separate institution as well as in fact.
As long as the prison regulations apply to this institution, the stigma of prison will attach to it. It should not, in fact, be a prison. It is a special type of institution—something that has grown up over the years. It is for corrective training for a special type of offender and the fact that it is such a special type of institution should be recognised by the making of special regulations in respect of it. The purpose of these amendments, therefore, is to take away what is suggested now, namely, the imposition with modification, of course, of the prison regulations and to provide that regulations will be made that persons sentenced shall undergo a course of corrective training, shall receive psychiatric treatment, shall be trained in a trade or craft and shall engage in such educational, occupational, recreational and athletic activities as may assist their reformation and rehabilitation. As we are dealing with St. Patrick's and this special institution, it would be desirable to recognise that fact in the legislation before us.
I am sure the Deputy is aware, in the first instance, that the decision to take the Borstal institution from Clonmel to Mountjoy was a decision by my predecessor. It may be that it is unfortunate that the place which was decided upon was associated with the name of Mountjoy Prison but that is only in passing, so to speak. St. Patrick's is distinctly separate from Mountjoy Prison and it is not connected with it except from the point of view of taking boys, who are committed to Mountjoy, through a door into St. Patrick's.
It is desirable that these boys who are sent for a term of imprisonment to Mountjoy should not be left in Mountjoy and that we should have in such contiguous position another place to which we can take them without having to transfer down the country or do something of that description. I can assure the Deputy interested in this whole question that St. Patrick's is to all intents and purposes a separate institution, without any connections whatever with Mountjoy other than those I have mentioned.
Before dealing with the amendment, it is necessary to say that subsection (2) of this section, which the amendment proposes to modify, is merely intended to give the Minister for Justice power to make regulations for the management of St. Patrick's in so far as it is being used for the detention of persons sentenced under Section 13. Those offenders who are already liable to be detained in St. Patrick's are already provided for under rules made under the Prisons Acts and regulations made under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908. These rules and regulations apply only to persons who may be detained in St. Patrick's under the present law, that is, persons sentenced to Borstal detention or persons transferred to the institution from a prison under Section 3 of the 1908 Act. It is necessary, therefore, to have a regulation-making power for the institution in so far as it is used for detaining persons sent to it directly from the courts under this section but there is no good reason why these persons should not be subject to exactly the same regulations as those who may already be sent to the institution.
If this amendment were accepted, the Minister would not be in a position to apply the rules and regulations applicable to the persons already liable to be sent to St. Patrick's to the inmates who would be sent direct to the institution from the courts. It would be impracticable, even if it were necessary or desirable, to introduce a special régime for the offenders who happen to come into St. Patrick's direct from the courts. For example, there would be no question of providing a separate visiting committee for them. The most convenient way of placing the direct arrivals under the same régime as those already liable to be sent or transferred to St. Patrick's is to apply the existing rules and regulations to them. Any other procedure would serve no useful purpose.
It may be said that it would be undesirable to apply old Prisons Acts and rules made under them to St. Patrick's as this may over-emphasise the prison aspect of St. Patrick's, but no magic can be worked by deleting unpleasant words like "prison". St. Patrick's must remain primarily a prison and the possibilities for corrective training must continue to be limited so long as the factors mentioned in the Second Stage speech continue to apply—small total number of prisoners, preponderance of inmates, extravagantly high cost of building separate institutions, etc. Nevertheless, subject to these limitations, what can be done is being done. We are dealing with two amendments, I understand?
Yes, we are discussing both amendments.
I am not clear from the Minister's remarks, and in regard to the four subheads in the suggested subsection by Deputy Ryan and Deputy Costello, whether or not the regulations which the Minister may make at the moment can provide for the kind of corrective treatment and training suggested in the new subsection. The Minister did not make it clear to me whether he already has power to provide for these four aspects. I feel the Minister should have power to make regulations on those lines. I recognise that that is not really what is at issue in the moving of these amendments by Deputies Ryan and Costello. They wish to emphasise— and, I think, rightly to emphasise— that notwithstanding the passage of this Bill, there is a distinction between what might be described as the successor to the Borstal institution and the ordinary prison or prison sentence. I think I am correct in saying that is what underlies these amendments, but, as a corollary to that, I suggest that the Minister should at least ensure that he has power to make regulations which will enable those detained in St. Patrick's to undergo a course of corrective training, receive psychiatric treatment, be trained in trades and crafts or engage in educational and other facilities such as suggested here.
Yes, we have that power under existing law and all these are actually operating at the moment.
The Minister's answer to these amendments amounts, in effect, to saying that it is difficult to accept them because of the number of short-term offenders mixed up with the prisoners doing corrective training for a longer period. That is the very situation to which we are taking exception. This situation, in which a number of short-term prisoners are doing a sentence of twelve months and less, have been transferred from prison as such into the Borstal institution and are mixed up with prisoners serving the longer sentence—a development which has occurred in recent times— is something to which objection is rightly taken. As I said earlier this afternoon, I feel that the Government would do well to take stock of what has been occurring in the comparatively recent past with regard to the treatment of these boys who have to undergo this special corrective training. They are a special problem and they are a special class in themselves and mixing in with them these other youths who are undergoing the shorter term training is bad for both sets and I feel that to use this development as an argument against these amendments is not really answering the suggestions which were in the minds of Deputy Ryan and myself when we put them down.
I repeat that it is not desirable that the prison regulations as such and the Prison Acts as such should be referred to when dealing with St. Patrick's. The purpose of these amendments is to give the Minister power not to make the regulations which of course he must make under the Prison Acts and not to apply, even in modified form, the prison regulations to St. Patrick's but to apply separate regulations to this separate and distinct institution. May I say that although the Minister says that St. Patrick's is a separate institution, it is no more separate from Mountjoy Prison than the Seanad is separate from the Dáil? You walk through a gate and you are into a wing of the building and that wing happens to be known as St. Patrick's. You walk down a corridor here——
It is a distinct and separate building.
Yes, but they are parts of the same institution, Mountjoy. I feel that the families of boys there and the boys themselves and prospective employers are all affected by the aura of Mountjoy Prison which is attached to the present institution. The Minister referred to the cost of building another institution or acquiring a suitable institution. I do not know what the cost would be but I feel it should be investigated very carefully with a view to seeing if such a new institution could be acquired or if necessary built, away from the precincts of Mountjoy but not too far from the city. It would be of considerable benefit to the boys and society generally.
Mr. Ryan
I must apologise to the Minister for being late but I was detained elsewhere—not detained within the meaning of the Act but otherwise. We have to face this problem bearing in mind that 40 per cent. of our crime is being committed by people under 21 years of age. That is not something about which we should panic but it is something about which we should be realistic. It has been the trend in all so-called civilised societies that the youth tend to monopolise the amount of crime being committed. That being so, if we are not to face a terrible future in crime, we must lower the amount of crime being committed at an early age.
I doubt very much if the treatment in our adult prisons is entirely appropriate to the correction and reformation of young people. I appreciate that within the power to make regulations which the Minister has at the moment, he may mould and change the regulations so that they will apply in particular ways to the juvenile prisons and to St. Patrick's, but it is undesirable that we should treat it all as a common prisons code, that we should treat St. Patrick's, and the staff of St. Patrick's, as cogs in a very large machine.
We are dealing with a new problem in this modern age where there is greater freedom for young people, where youth have more opportunities for getting into trouble than they had in olden days, where the discipline of the home and society has become somewhat relaxed in regard to youth, and I believe there is only one way of curing the youths who are starting off on the wrong road, that is, by applying a different form of correction and treatment to them from that to which we are accustomed in our adult prisons.
I am well aware that the Minister and his predecessors—and his successors will have, I am sure—have the same intentions and wishes as we have regarding the youth of the country and those who find themselves sent to St. Patrick's, but I feel there might be a greater readiness on the part of the courts to send young people to St. Patrick's for longer terms, if they felt satisfied that the correct remedial measures were being applied at the right time.
I agree with Deputy Costello in his criticism of the location of St. Patrick's. I am quite conscious that those who moved the Borstal from Clonmel to Dublin did so with the best intentions and that, in fact, it was almost a necessity to do it for the good of the boys themselves, because the ordinary routine of the institution—washing floors and washing dishes and such things —had to be carried out by the long term inmates, as there were not sufficient numbers in the institution to keep the ordinary day to day duties ticking over. It was felt that if the institution were moved to Dublin, the short term juvenile prisoners might do the more menial tasks of washing floors and dishes, leaving the boys sentenced to Borstal treatment the opportunity of getting the education, treatment and training which they were sent to get.
However, whatever the cost may be —I suppose it would run between £100,000 and £150,000—in fairness to the young people, most of whom have mistakenly gone the wrong way, if we are to recognise our duty towards future generations, we are bound to spend that money now by building a new institution away from the grey walls of Mountjoy. If any person takes a bird's eye view of Mountjoy, though we may talk here about the female prison and the male prison being separate institutions, he will see that they are neighbouring institutions behind each other, and they are inside one grey wall which we commonly know as Mountjoy Prison. I appreciate that there is a separate entrance to St. Patrick's, but, nevertheless, it is very much the same institution in the public mind. Whatever the Department of Justice or Deputies may say, that fact still remains.
I believe it would be a very desirable and necessary contribution towards the welfare of the State in general to remove that institution, and to have a separate code which could be built up, not with an eye to the old prison regulations, but with an eye to the future, and to the needs of the time, and with an eye to what is necessary for the correction and improvement of these young people before they go on the path which will lead them into greater trouble.
We are getting away a little from the rules which we were to discuss. We are now dealing with the question of the suitability or otherwise of St. Patrick's as an institution. That is a matter for discussion. It is not a matter I could deal with here and I am sure both Deputies will realise that. The decision with regard to substituting a new building for St. Patrick's does not lie with me. As Deputy Costello said on Second Reading, it would involve the expenditure of something in the region of £100,000 or £200,000 and if might, indeed, exceed that figure.
The Minister said on Second Reading that he was not prepared to suggest the expenditure of that sum to the Government.
I would be behind the Deputy in everything he thinks should be done if the money could be made available, but we have to work on the basis of the money available.
Sell a jet plane, then.
Personally—I might as well be blunt about it—I cannot see any hope, in the foreseeable future, of a building of the kind the Deputies appear to have in mind. I should love to be able to come into the House and say we propose to expend £250,000 on the building of an institution to meet all the needs of those young inmates, but I just cannot do that. That would be a matter of major policy, a decision on which would have to be taken by the Government, and not by me. While I might espouse that cause, I do not know how far I could influence my colleagues into expending that money.
I am personally satisfied that in all the circumstances, limited as we are at the present moment, St. Patrick's is a reasonably good institution, and that it is being run in a manner which is a credit to those responsible. There is a visiting committee which takes a very personal interest in its running, and I know several of the individuals there who take almost a personal managerial sort of interest in its running. From that point of view, I think the interests of the inmates are being thoroughly well looked after.
There is religious instruction, and there is a full time chaplain who looks after the religious instruction. There is Mass every morning in a church which is available and, generally speaking, the suggestions which have been made by the Deputies are already in operation. For example, the inmates of St. Patrick's are kept usefully occupied throughout the day. As I said on Second Reading:
They are given instruction in the assembly of motor-cars and cycles, in tailoring, shoe repairing, carpentry and they are employed in woodcutting and in the maintenance and repair of the buildings. As regards recreation, facilities are provided for football, boxing and other indoor games. Football matches are arranged from time to time and boxing tournaments are regularly held during the winter months. Films of entertainment and educational or religious interest are shown during the winter season and lectures are given by interested outsiders.
Prolonged and really useful training can be given only to those serving long sentences and it is to be hoped that the courts will have regard to the facilities available in St. Patrick's and tend to impose somewhat longer sentences. It is true that a high proportion of the inmates will be serving sentences which, when allowance is made for the usual remission and low educational standard, will still be far too short for them to benefit by occupational therapy.
That is the situation which exists there at the present moment and not much more can be done. The great difficulty which the authorities in the institution are up against is the low educational standard which exists there and an effort to do anything that would be of value is almost nullified by reason of the very short period the inmates are in the institution. Only those who are sent there for a period of two or three years can reap the real benefit that corrective training brings to them.
There is no use in talking about operating corrective training in respect to boys sent there for four or six weeks, or anything like that. You just cannot do anything about it. In some respects, you would not have time to teach some of them the alphabet. However, within these limits, I assure Deputies who have a deep interest in this matter that the most effective steps are being taken to see that these regulations are carried out to the benefit of the boys.
I should not like if any words I uttered were to be taken as criticism of the existing management of the Saint Patrick's institution. I am very well aware of the wonderful work done there and, furthermore, as the Minister very rightly said, by the Visiting Committee and the full-time Chaplain. The Minister touched on the trouble that is agitating our minds on this side of the House, namely, the fact that a great number of the boys in Saint Patrick's are not there for any length of time. They are there only for a short period. Properly speaking, they are not undergoing corrective training.
I fear the short-termers who are there for a month, six months or even nine months may disrupt the organisation of the boys there for the longer period. That is the gravamen of our criticism of recent developments with regard to Saint Patrick's institution. I welcome what the Minister has now said. As I understand it, he would like to press for a separate institution for Saint Patrick's.
I appreciate that, in a Government, Ministers of every Department have their own special concerns and must put them up and take their chance in the list of priorities to be drawn up by the Government. In his Second Reading speech the Minister said he did not feel justified in making a suggestion to the Government that a new institution should be built or purchased. If the Minister can persuade his colleagues of the wisdom of erecting a new institution, even at a considerable cost, I feel he will meet with no opposition from this side of the House on coming forward with such a proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Report stage ordered for Thursday, 7th July, 1960.
The Minister will circulate the amendment?
The amendment is practically ready. The Deputy will probably have it in his hands in a few moments.