Vol. 359 No. 1
asked the Minister for Justice the reason Deputy Gay Mitchell was advised that a prisoner (details supplied) who was sent money by registered post while in Cork prison had had the money, which went missing, restored to his mother when this has not happened.
14.
asked the Minister for Justice the outcome of his investigations into allegations that a letter sent by a prisoner (details supplied) to Deputy Gay Mitchell was never processed by the prison authorities; and the reason Deputy Mitchell has not been advised of the outcome of these investigations, despite having formally raised the matter with him.
15.
asked the Minister for Justice the reason a prisoner (details supplied) was moved from Mountjoy to Cork; and if this had anything to do with the visit of the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism to Mountjoy since he was returned to the Dublin prison again shortly after the committee's visit.
(Limerick East): I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, together.
These three questions relate to the same prisoner and were originally put down for answer on 4 December 1984.
I must assume that the Deputy did not receive my letter dated 16 November 1984 in which I explained that a postal order for £5 was sent by the governor of the prison to a solicitor acting on behalf of the prisoner's mother, receipt of which was acknowledged. In my letter I also outlined the results of the governor's investigation into the loss of a registered letter in which £5 was said to have been sent to the prisoner by his mother. I have arranged for a copy of my letter to be sent to the Deputy.
The prisoner was transferred from Mountjoy prison to Cork prison on 15 August 1984, about a month before the visit from the select committee to Mountjoy, and he was transferred back to Mountjoy on 9 October 1984, almost a month after the visit. The transfer had nothing whatever to do with that visit. The original transfer to Cork was for security reasons.
There is no record in either Mountjoy or Cork prisons that any letter written by the prisoner to the Deputy was not allowed to issue. The normal practice is that letters written by prisoners to Deputies are issued automatically. There is no record in the Department that the Deputy raised the issue. The records do show that a request was made by the Deputy in April 1984 for early release for the prisoner. The request was refused and the Deputy was so informed by letter dated 21 May 1984.
I wish to be allowed to ask supplementary questions on each of the three questions. Firstly, why did this money go missing and will there be a prosecution as a result of this?
(Limerick East): A postal order for £5 was sent by the Governor of the prison to a solicitor acting on behalf of the prisoner's mother and receipt of that was acknowledged.
Why was the money not given to the prisoner when it was sent to him by registered post? Did somebody steal it and will somebody be prosecuted? Does the prisoner lose all rights?
(Limerick East): Are we talking about the same £5?
We are talking about money sent by registered post. Did somebody steal the money and will somebody be prosecuted? The prison authorities denied having received this money and then said they had passed it over to the prisoner and it was subsequently paid to the solicitor. Why was that money interfered with?
(Limerick East): I outlined the results of the governor's investigation into the loss of the registered letter in which £5 was said to have been sent to the prisoner by his mother. They could not establish whether or not the £5 was received but a postal order was then sent to the solicitor acting on behalf of the mother. Beyond that I cannot take the matter.
This prisoner sent me a letter which never reached me and the only evidence he has of a similar interference was the registered letter. Given the fact that similar allegations by other prisoners were made at the time, would the Minister not agree that there is something essentially wrong with the system which allows incoming and outgoing post to be interfered with in a way which impinges on the rights of the prisoner?
(Limerick East): I have no evidence that the prisoner sent any letter to the Deputy.
But the Minister has evidence that a letter was sent——
(Limerick East): I have no evidence that the prisoner did not send a letter to the Deputy. All I am saying is that——
But the Minister has evidence that a letter was sent to him.
(Limerick East): I do not have that evidence either. All I am saying is that a postal order for £5 was sent——
The Deputy should listen to the Minister when he asks a question.
The Deputy should not keep interrupting.
The position is very clear, Deputy.
(Limerick East): The Deputy could be into conspiracy because he also talks about the prisoner being transferred to Cork as a result of a visit to Mountjoy by the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism.
The Deputy suspects that there is a conspiracy.
Will the Deputy stop interrupting?
(Limerick East): The permission for the visit by the Select Committee on Crime, Lawlessness and Vandalism, of which Deputy Mitchell is a member, was given following a telephone call on 9 September 1984. The man had been transferred to Cork on the previous 15 August——
When was the application made?
(Limerick East): It was not made before 15 August. The arrangements were made by telephone call. The Deputy is making a lot out of what seems to be a series of allegations for which I cannot see any great reason.
Is it not a fact that a registered letter sent to this prisoner in Portlaoise was interfered with?
(Limerick East): I informed the Deputy of the results of the governor's investigation. There is an allegation that a registered letter was sent but I cannot prove whether or not it was received. However, £5 was sent by postal order to the solicitor acting on behalf of the mother.
Lock up the committee.
If the governor cannot prove what happened why did they refund the £5 to the prisoner's solicitor?
(Limerick East): To reduce the level of hassle from the Deputy. It was certainly worth £5.
Give him the £5, Minister.
The Minister is giving the sort of reply we would expect from the officers of the POA. In view of the fact that I strongly suspect that somebody——
I am not going to hear a speech from the Deputy at Question Time.
——interfered with his post, I wish to raise this matter on the Adjournment and the whole question of prison officers dealings with prisoners.
I will communicate with the Deputy.
Post it to the Deputy.
