Vol. 506 No. 2
38 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he has received the transcript of a High Court case which was ordered to be sent to him by the presiding judge where a rapist (details supplied) who had not received the therapy ordered for him by the judge is shortly to be released; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15307/99]
I have received the transcript referred to by the Deputy. I have asked officials in the psychology, probation and welfare and medical services in my Department to examine this issue as a matter of urgency and I am awaiting a report on the matter.
The person referred to by the Deputy is serving a six year sentence for rape and is due for release with standard remission on 9 December 2000. He applied to participate in the dedicated sex offender group treatment programme in Arbour Hill Prison which began in September 1998. He did not apply for participation in the programme prior to this. He was interviewed by the treatment team which comprises psychologists and probation and welfare professional staff but was not considered suitable for participation at that stage. He was, however, urged to apply for a future programme. I am sure the Deputy will understand that I cannot discuss the reasons for this refusal to protect the privacy of the individual concerned. I can assure the Deputy, however, that the reasons for refusal are communicated to all applicants and they are advised on more appropriate forms of treatment to meet their individual needs.
Applications for the next group programme which is due to begin in September 1999 will issue to all convicted sex offenders in July. It is open to the person concerned to apply for inclusion in this programme and his suitability will again be assessed by the treatment team.
Various criteria are applied to determine the suitability of an offender for the group treatment programme. These include the type of offence, amount of sentence to be served, level of danger posed to the community on release and ability to cope with the demands of such a programme. I should explain that group treatment is very demanding on participants who are compelled to confront their offending behaviour openly in group sessions. Many sex offenders in prison are unwilling to engage in such a process and some who may be willing do not have the emotional or intellectual capacity or maturity to do so. Central to suitability is the quality and perseverance of the offender's motivation towards treatment. The final decision as to suitability is made by the programme delivery team after careful deliberation and consultation with prison personnel who know the offender well.
Although the person concerned was not considered suitable for the dedicated sex offender group treatment programme, he has received treatment while in prison. He was first referred to my Department's psychology service in March 1996 and was seen on a regular basis up to April 1997. He was seen by a consultant psychiatrist who has experience of a range of psychiatric therapies on a regular basis over a period of 18 months to two years from April 1997. He recently sought a further referral to the psychology service. He has been seen by a psychologist on foot of this request and will continue to be seen while he is in custody.
(Mayo): Does the Minister realise that the reason the judge was so angry on 17 May in the High Court was that his recommendation of three years ago that this prisoner should receive intensive therapy was not carried out? This person had been found guilty of rape on two occasions, had served a four year sentence in England, and had a six year sentence imposed on him in this country. The prisoner had been the victim of rape while in care in a home in Clonmel. Does the Minister regard it as acceptable that somebody who is to be released within the next six months has, to date, not received any treatment, despite the fact that the judge made it conditional on his sentence being reviewed that this individual would receive such therapy?
The individual concerned was examined by professional staff, and it must be clear to the Deputy that the professional opinion of experts must be accepted, otherwise there would not be any point in consulting them. As I have already outlined, he was advised to apply for the next treatment programme. I have repeatedly stated that the criteria which operate are that the individuals are volunteers and that they are suitable. Obviously, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I do not make the decision in either case. The individual makes the decision to volunteer and the experts decide whether the individual is suitable.
(Mayo): Is the Minister aware that it was brought to the court's attention that two psychiatrists had recommended that it was not safe to release this individual next October or next December? On the point raised by Deputy Shortall about our inadequate performance in terms of dealing with sex offenders, will the Minister state the number of people who applied to avail of the limited sex therapy treatment and services?
There are currently ten people undergoing the sex offender treatment programme in Arbour Hill Prison; that is the number of places available. I understand 48 offenders have successfully completed the treatment programme and, in addition, individual counselling is available at all of the relevant institutions. The number of offenders undergoing one to one counselling is difficult to define because of the varied nature of individual counselling provided to sex offenders in prison. Such a service is primarily provided by the probation and welfare service and the psychology service in my Department. Psychiatric services are also provided.
With regard to the supervision of individuals in the community, the Deputy will be aware that I recently published a paper on sexual offences and it is my intention to legislate on foot of some of the proposals contained in that document.
We must proceed to Question No. 39. As Deputy Flanagan is not present, that question falls.
(Mayo): Is it not in order for me to take it?
No, not a priority question.
