Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Apr 1993

Vol. 429 No. 8

Adjournment Debate. - Early Release of Convicted Person.

Mr. Shatter

A Cheann Comhairle, thank you for allowing me raise this matter. At 11 p.m. on a night in March last year Sarah Vickers and two teenage friends were hit by a car driven by a 24-year old man, one Brian Kennedy. Four days later Sarah died in hospital. The driver of the car was given a three-month prison sentence at Dún Laoghaire District Court having been convicted of dangerous driving. He was also fined £300 for driving while uninsured and disqualified from driving for two years. A further fine of £200 for the unlawful use of the car, which was owned by his mother, was also imposed. Hit and run summonses were struck out.

There was considerable public disquiet at the leniency of the sentence imposed. At the very least it was to be expected that the sentence would be longer in this case. Less than two weeks after commencing to serve the three-month sentence the man responsible for the death of Sarah Vickers was released from prison.

It is an outrageous scandal that that person was released so early from prison. His early release has caused great anguish to the parents of the late Sarah Vickers. Despite requests having been made to her, to date the Minister for Justice has offered no explanation as to why such an early release took place. In my view it is inexcusable that not more than two weeks of such a minimal sentence was served for such an appalling offence. I also regard it as inexplicable that only a three-month sentence was imposed in the first place.

There has been some recent comment from the Minister about the need for the Judiciary to impose harsher sentences in particular types of cases and for a uniform sentencing policy. There is little point in the Minister engaging in such criticism of the Judiciary if she is unable to keep her own house in order and ensure that, when sentences are imposed, they are fully and properly served.

Will the Minister explain to the House why the minimal sentence imposed in this case was not fully implemented; tell us if she received any representations regarding an early release and further explain why, when the Vickers family sought an explanation from her, a letter was received by them which was wrongly addressed to their deceased daughter? Apparently, a second letter was then wrongly sent to the deceased girl's dead uncle. Finally, after this, a letter was received by her tragic parents, Joan and Leo Vickers, but it shed no light on the events.

The involvement of the Department of Justice with this tragic family has been a litany of hamfisted, thoughtless, bureaucratic bungling which has been added to by the Minister's refusal to tell the family the full story, by her callous use of the family to cover up both her own and her Department's ineptitude and by seeking some worthless personal publicity, when it became known that this man had been released early, by arranging a meeting with some members of the Vickers family and others who are concerned about the lenient sentences imposed by some members of the Judiciary for dangerous driving offences.

Joan and Leo Vickers are entitled to straight and honest answers to their questions. Instead of answers they have been treated with contempt by the Minister responsible for the early release of the person who killed their daughter and despite the Government's so-called commitment to openness it has until today refused to explain the extraordinary events I described. Will the Minister give the family the explanations to which they are entitled? It should not be seen as a matter for secrecy; giving them the explanations to which they are entitled will not endanger national security. I hope the Minister will tell the House the full story.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn)

I am deeply conscious of the fact that, while issues of general policy and practice arise in the context of this debate, it takes its origin in the death of a young girl who lost her life in a traffic accident.

Sarah Vickers' death was a tragedy and I share fully with every other Member of this House an understanding of the grief which the loss of this young life has visited on her family and friends. I have met members of the family and I know of their pain. It was a matter of the deepest regret to me that a letter I sent to the family, subsequent to our meeting, which was wrongly addressed, caused them further distress. That error was inexcusable. As Minister, I accept full responsibility for what occurred and I immediately apologised both personally, by telephone and by letter, for the lapse in standards which the error showed. I believe that we should take the greatest care today to ensure that nothing is said which adds to the family's distress.

This case, like all others, was the subject of a Garda investigation, prosecution, trial and sentence. I have no control over nor any function in relation to any of these processes in individual cases. As a lawyer, Deputy Shatter knows that it is not the function of my Department to decide what charges, if any, should be preferred in a particular case — that is a matter for the DPP — and it is a matter for the courts to determine the conviction and sentence. My functions arise in relation to the subsequent management of sentences.

In this case the sentence which fell to be managed was a three month sentence imposed by the court for dangerous driving. That sentence, with the standard one quarter remission, amounted in practice to ten weeks.

The management of sentences — all sentences — involves decisions as to whether individual offenders should be granted conditional early release. The power to grant such releases is vested in the Minister for Justice under the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, in fact it is one of the major "alternatives" to custody, and an option which was, incidentally, advocated by the Whitaker Committee.

In deciding on temporary release, a range of factors is taken into account including the nature of the offence, the length of sentence, any previous criminal history, behaviour while in custody and, where necessary, a Garda assessment as to whether the offender would be a danger to the community if released. Temporary releases, when granted, are always subject to conditions, the breach of which may lead to revocation of the temporary release. Conditions may include an undertaking to be of good behaviour, to accept supervision by the Probation and Welfare Service, to report to a Garda station at specified times etc.

The prison system is operating at maximum capacity i.e. around 2,200. The policy is to use these places for the optimum benefit of the community e.g. to accommodate all committals as they arrive, but, especially to accommodate all offenders who are convicted of serious offences and who would, if free, constitute a real and substantial danger to the public. To ensure that this policy can be maintained, some latitude is exercised in relation, for example, to prisoners serving short sentences, whose release would not constitute a danger to the public. The objective is, as I said, to make optimum use of the available accommodation.

The offender in this case was released by reference to the aforementioned criteria. The sentence imposed by the courts was relatively short, he had no criminal history, was generally of good character and was considered not to represent a danger to the public if released — in other words, he was considered suitable for temporary release.

While it is not the practice, for very good reasons, to go into the circumstances of individual releases I think that, in the exceptional circumstances of this case — and I emphasise that I am making a single exception — the decision to release the offender in question, and others, on 16 March 1993 was made for purely operational reasons. They were released to ensure that sufficient prison spaces would be available over the bank holiday and the following weekend to accommodate all new committals. The decision, in other words, was taken in the context of making optimum use of available prison spaces under general guidelines which have been operating for years under successive Ministers for Justice. There were no improper motives or other pressures involved. The official who sanctioned the release, did so in what he saw as a correct application of existing criteria and against a background where the advice available to him, including Garda advice, was that the particular release did not pose a threat to the public.

I have informed the Vickers family subsequent to our meeting that I did not think it would be helpful to them if I were to go into detail about the circumstances of this release. I do not for one moment expect that by outlining background circumstances now to this House, I will in any way ease the grief and sense of loss experienced by those who were bereaved by the death of Sarah Vickers. It is important, however, that the House should have a frank statement of the realities involved.

Finally, it is appropriate, given the circumstances I have just outlined, that I should also inform the House that I have commenced a major review of the policy in relation to the prison system and the treatment of offenders generally. A wide range of options is being considered in this context, including the provision of more cell spaces, the wider development of community-based sanctions as an alternative to prison custody and the development of more appropriate parole arrangements. I will be making a further statement in the matter when my review is completed.