asked the Minister for Justice if he has called for an inquiry into the death of a prisoner (name supplied) in Mountjoy Prison; and, if not, if he will do so.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Death of Prisoner.
11.
On 16th May last an inquest, which is a public sworn inquiry, was held on the death of the prisoner to whom the Deputy refers. In addition, full Departmental inquiries were made into the circumstances of the death, as is normal in such cases.
I should like the Minister to clarify a number of points to discover the truth of certain statements that were made. The death took place on 29th April. Previously at the district court, is the Minister aware, the justice recommended a psychiatric examination of the prisoner and, by report, there was no such examination. At the district court the prisoner stated he would do away with himself and there is no record of an examination before the prisoner left Limerick Prison and no record of an examination in Mountjoy Prison when he arrived there. On 19th April he tore up his sheet and was placed in a padded cell and on the morning of 18th April his wife got a letter from the prison, which had been censored——
I want to help the Deputy, but we must pursue the matter by way of question rather than by way of statement.
These are all questions. I have them tabulated. His wife received a letter—No. 5 sub-question —on 18th April, which was censored at the prison and which stated that she could expect home his body. Is the Minister aware that he had not been seen by the prison medical officer for nine days before his death, although at that time he was in the infirmary——
This is a long series of questions.
It is the one question. Is the Minister aware that there is a strong family history of mental illness in that particular prisoner's case?
I am aware that both the unfortunate widow and the neighbours of this man were well aware he was mentally ill but all the time he was at home he never received any treatment for his condition. I am also aware that the other matters the Deputy has raised have already been raised and many of them were raised at the inquest. The inquest was wide ranging and persons who were present there and about whose capacity and entitlement to be there there is some doubt were, nevertheless, permitted by the coroner in his discretion to intervene and asked many of the questions the Deputy has now raised. Lest there be any doubt about it let me say that that is not to say the points raised by the Deputy represent the actual position.
They are the questions as I asked them and I should like a straight answer from the Minister. Judging by the statements I have there has been obviously neglect by the prison authorities.
I reject that completely. The coroner and the jury were asked by some of the people present at the inquest to demand an inquiry and they rejected that, having heard the full evidence, and they were in a position to hear evidence from the parties immediately concerned in the prison with this unfortunate man. A jury of concerned citizens rejected that call for an inquiry.
Does the Minister agree the man was mentally unsound?
It appears so.
The Deputy has already put that question.
What I find distressing is that, when he was at large, and he was at large most of the time, he received no treatment for his condition.
Question No. 12. We are having repetition now.
Just one more question. It was obvious when he arrived in the prison because he was put into the infirmary—normally prisoners are not put into the infirmary —because of his record. They knew he was mental and what I am suggesting is the State was negligent and the State should be held responsible for compensation for the death of that man to his wife and seven young children.
I reject that completely and that suggestion has already been rejected by a jury.
Can the Minister explain to Deputies who are not as well informed as Deputy Loughnane why, in the circumstances of this man's history, he was not kept in an institution, in Dundrum, for instance, which is apparently the appropriate place for such cases?
Because Dundrum is available only for people who are certifiably insane and this man did not come into that category.
Why was——
I have given the Deputy a great deal of latitude. I am calling Question No. 12.
Why was there no psychiatric examination?
All these matters were gone into at the inquest.
We are entitled to ask questions.
We cannot have a debate here.
I deprecate people here raising questions which have already been fully answered.
The Minister agrees the man was of unsound mind. He was obviously neglected. The man was killed by the State.
That is an outrageous suggestion and a serious slander on the prison officers and the prison medical staff.
Do I understand the Minister to say we cannot have an inquiry here?
We cannot have a public inquiry into this particular matter which has already been dealt with by a coroner and jury.
We have a responsibility to ask questions and the Minister has a responsibility to answer them.
I have answered them.
(Interruptions.)
Order. I am calling Question No. 12.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I propose, with your permission, to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.