Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 8 Dec 1987

Vol. 376 No. 5

Adjournment Debate. - Detention of Irish Woman.

Deputy Andrews has been given permission to raise on the Adjournment the treatment of Martina Shanahan and others in connection with alleged offences against the British Secretary of State.

Martina Shanahan is aged 22 years, she has no previous convictions and her family are resident in Dublin. She is at present detained at Risley remand centre in Cheshire. It is important to place in context exactly where Cheshire is situated on the map of England. It is in the north between Liverpool and Warrington. She is on remand, however, to Chippenham Magistrates' Court in the south between Bristol and Swindon. Each remand appearance takes place not in Chippenham Magistrates' Court but in the recreation room of Chippenham Police Station. One single lay magistrate presides, not a legally qualified stipendiary magistrate. The information is that other local magistrates — normally three lay magistrates sit together — have expressed their unwillingness to appear for reasons best known to themselves.

The police station has the appearance of a fortress. There are marksmen clearly visible on and around the roof. No members of the public appear to attend. At most, one member of one of the families and members of the press attend this court.

Notwithstanding the extraordinary setting of the court proceedings and the fact that the room used as a court is lined with police, the three defendants are brought from the cells a few yards away with both hands cuffed together and further handcuffed to police officers. Directives on handcuffing of prisoners in court, and the leading case on the issue, dictate that there should be no handcuffing unless it can be shown that the individual prisoner has a propensity for violence and/or has shown a reasonable expectation that he or she will attempt to escape. Otherwise it is an assault by police. None of this has been shown in relation to these three prisoners. When stopped by police they accompanied them willingly and voluntarily to the police station.

Let us be clear about this: they were caught in suspicious circumstances and nobody is denying that. What we are dealing with this evening is the treatment of the prisoners, and Martina Shanahan in particular. The single lay magistrate showed herself unable to comprehend the legal issues raised in relation to even this agreement on handcuffs and said it was a matter for the police and that she trusted them.

By holding hearings in a police station and surrounding them with prejudicial trappings, that is, armed police, helicopters, escorts with sirens, handcuffs, etc., any eventual trial will be affected by prejudicial interpretations. Certainly any person in Chippenham and in the area to whom Martina Shanahan's solicitor has spoken, refers to them as "the terrorists". Clearly the pool of local magistrates has been similarly affected if it is right that only one magistrate is willing to sit on this case.

By handcuffing the prisoners despite such extraordinary security one is presenting them physically in a degrading and prejudicial way. In addition, such handcuffing entirely prohibits the possibility of private consultation between lawyer and client without being overheard by the police handcuffed to them during court proceedings — I understand this happened at least on one appearance when there was a necessity for all three solicitors to speak to all three defendents urgently and in consequence three other police overheard the whole conversation.

In general terms, the excessive melodrama that appears to surround the court of any suspect who is Irish and is charged with a so-called terrorist offence is not only wrong in principle and affects any eventual trial, but it is exaggerated in this instance. It is bad practice, and it is unfair that the specially designated court should be in a police station.

Ms Shanahan is so far from court at Risley that she has to be brought from Risley some 200 miles on the night before any court appearance and housed at the police station overnight. She is accompanied by a convoy, is handcuffed in the back of a van — on the first occasion with black plastic bags over the windows — with a helicopter, and on one occasion a helicopter and a plane. She is as far as it is possible to be from the court, from her solicitor, and from her co-defendants. She arrives at court in an understandably upset state.

Since her arrest Ms Shanahan has spoken to no one at Risley except her family for one hour when they travel from Dublin overnight by ferry to visit her once a week. They are a family of no means. They travel because Ms Shanahan does not have conversation with any other human being if they do not. She is prohibited from any contact with any other prisoner. When she leaves her cell once a day for "exercise" all other prisoners are cleared from the exercise yard. When she tried on one occasion to look out of the window of her cell at other prisoners exercising she was told that was forbidden. The Home Office inform us she is the only category A prisoner (female) in the country and hence she is not permitted to speak to anyone else. She remains in her cell 23 hours a day.

After serious complaints had been made in relation to her conditions, she was told during one week she could watch television instead of exercise. She is not allowed to go to Mass with other prisoners but has to have it in her cell, unlike male category "A" prisoners. The light in her cell remains on for 24 hours. It in only dimmed at night, not switched off. For the first four weeks of her custody she suffered from permanent and debilitating headaches.

These complaints speak for themselves. It is, however, impossible for any Irish prisoner charged with such an offence to have their prison conditions considered on their own merits. Ms. Shanahan is a well-behaved and very pleasant young woman who is a model prisoner. She faces the prospect of waiting up to nine months or a year before a trial at which she will almost certainly be acquitted of the charge brought against her. In that time we would expect that she will physically and mentally deteriorate. She is suffering already from obvious signs of strain. Her family are likely to face enormous debts to pay for weekly travel to allow for any human contact.

Her solicitor is in as much contact as possible but distances are considerable. After each court appearance at present her solicitor requests a joint conference with her co-defendants and their solicitors merely to contrive human contact. Food at Risley is dietetically unsound and, in addition, is always cold. Exercise is limited to walking round a yard on her own.

The conclusion is that this prisoner, Ms. Shanahan, is the most severely disadvantaged prisoner in the entire United Kingdom prison system, infinitely worse off than convicted prisoners who are provided with work, exercise and association. She, of course, is innocent in the eyes of the law. My belief, and the belief of her family, is that she will not do justice to herself or her case if she appears for trial broken or dented in spirit, mind or body. She faces trial in almost impossible conditions in any event because of prejudicial pre-trial publicity.

That is the case for the treatment of Ms. Shanahan and it appears to have all the elements of a case that presumes her guilt before she can prove her innocence. I want to strongly protest on behalf of the Shanahan family and her co-defendants about her treatment by the British authorities.

In the past few days we passed the Extradition Act and her treatment should be considered in that context. The British authorities have a duty to give her fair treatment but they are not doing that. I want the Minister to strongly protest to the British authorities, through the Anglo-Irish process or any other process he deems necessary, to give some semblance of justice to this young lady and her co-defendants in advance of a charge of which I and others believe they will be acquitted.

There is another aspect I should like to mention. There was some criticism in the recent past of the Irish Embassy in London and their alleged unwillingness to visit prisoners in British prisons. I want to put on the record my appreciation of the work being done by the Irish Embassy in London for the Irish community and for Irish prisoners in British prisons and my experience extends over a number of years.

I want to pay tribute to the Ambassador, Mr. Andrew O'Rourke, for his co-operation because he has a very limited number of people on his staff. My contact was a former official of the embassy, Orla O'Hanrahan, now in the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and her successor in the embassy, Breffni O'Reilly. This man does wonderful work. I am not talking about a 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. job, but a Monday to Sunday job. He has travelled from London to Long Lartin Prison, a two hour return journey, with me and other Members of the Dáil to visit prisoners in that category A establishment. My expression of appreciation reflects the experience I and others have had with the officials of the Irish Embassy in London. They have been very co-operative and it would be wrong if I were to let stand the criticism made of them in the Seanad.

On 1 December 1987, Parliamentary Question No. 60 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs "if he would arrange for a representative from the Irish Embassy in London to visit a person"— obviously Ms. Shanahan —"in Risley remand centre to ascertain the basis for the complaints she is making regarding the amount of exercise time given to her; and if he would make a statement on the matter." The Minister's reply was:

It is intended that an officer of the embassy will visit the person concerned in the near future. I will communicate directly with the Deputy as soon as the visit takes place.

I do not know if the visit has taken place but I hope it has and, if not, it should take place. Maybe the Minister will respond to the reasonable points raised arising out of what appears to be unfair treatment of Irish people in British prisons before their trial.

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to Deputy Andrews and for the manner in which he raised this very sensitive issue. I fully recognise that there is concern in this House and among the public generally about the treatment of some Irish prisoners in British jails. We all heard clear expression of this concern during the debate on the Extradition (Amendment) Bill, 1987, especially in relation to Miss Shanahan.

I have listened carefully to what Deputy Andrews said tonight about Ms. Shanahan's situation. The Government are acutely conscious of their responsibility to ensure that Irish prisoners in British jails are treated fairly. Whenever problems arise, we give clear and firm instructions to the Embassy in London to provide the necessary consular assistance and to take whatever other action may be required by the particular circumstances of each case. On behalf of the Embassy personnel, I should like to thank Deputy Andrews for his praise of the efforts of the Embassy personnel in this and other regards. Like him, I feel that the criticism made recently was unjust.

The Embassy's responsibilities in this area include visiting prisoners and actively pursuing any legitimate complaints with the British authorities. In some cases a prisoner might not wish a consular visit from the Embassy and of course that wish is respected. Our primary objective is to ensure that Irish citizens are treated fairly and equitably at all times. I am satisfied in this regard that the Embassy fulfils to the utmost its consular duties in this area within the limits of available resources. This, of course, is kept under constant review and is, indeed, being actively considered at present.

As regards the specific case of Ms. Shanahan, the Embassy has been actively monitoring the conditions in which she, and the two people who are charged with her, are being held in remand pending their trial. As mentioned by Deputy Andrews, Ms. Shanahan is the only female category A remand prisoner in Britain.

On the instructions of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Embassy visited Ms. Shanahan in Risley Remand Centre last week with a view to securing at first hand full details of her remand conditions. They differ from her co-accused in that they are, in effect, conditions of complete isolation. They have led to considerable concern, which I share. I particularly note the concern expressed by Ms. Shanahan's legal representative, Dr. Gareth Pierce, on her behalf. The Embassy, therefore, has been instructed to raise this isolation and other aspects of her condition with the British authorities. Miss Shanahan will be kept fully informed of developments in the Embassy's efforts to achieve improvements in her conditions and she will be visited again.

The Government understand and appreciate the concern of Deputies in this and other cases. On behalf of the Government, I should like to say that we are all particularly conscious and appreciative of the invaluable work of Deputy Andrews in this general area.

The Chair would be nervous to ask Deputy Andrews to comment on that. In his modesty, I know he would probably deny that he deserved this praise.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 9 December, 1987.

Top
Share