Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Feb 2002

Vol. 549 No. 2

Other Questions - Release of Prisoners.

Jim Higgins

Question:

9 Mr. Higgins (Mayo) asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the way in which it was decided a person (details supplied) should be released; the rehabilitation programme which was followed with the person; the way in which the authorities satisfied themselves that the local community would not be at risk by releasing this person unsupervised into the community; the person who decided that this person should be released; if this person will be released again; and if the authorities will admit their mistake and issue an apology to a family (details supplied). [4140/02]

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

60 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the conclusions he has reached or action taken on the Olden report con cerning the release from Castlerea Prison of a person (details supplied) who was subsequently convicted of the murder of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6092/02]

The management of the sentences of the person to whom the Deputy refers was the subject of a report by Mr. John Olden, the retired former runaí at Roinn na Gaeltachta. Mr. Olden's report was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 6 July 2001. It set out in great detail the manner in which the offender was considered for release including the process of rehabilitation prior to his reintegration back to society. Mr Olden noted that he received full co-operation with his inquiries.

This man was sentenced to life imprisonment on 22 February 1982. He was released to reside in the community on temporary release in March 1995 under the supervision of the probation and welfare service. His release followed a recommendation made by the Sentence Review Group in November 1991. The Sentence Review Group had been established in December 1989 to advise the Minister for Justice on the management of the sentences of long-term and life sentenced prisoners. The group met the prisoner and reviewed reports from the various services dealing with him in a therapeutic manner during his sentence. These services included the probation and welfare service, visiting psychiatric services, the prison psychology service, education and training services and prison management. The Garda also provided reports for the group's consideration.

A gradually progressing programme of releases was put in place for this man during the period between 1991 and 1995. This began with accompanied releases of a few hours duration and progressed through unaccompanied releases in the care of his family, to unaccompanied overnight releases. This programme was managed by officials of the prisons division of the Department, along with the prison management and the probation and welfare service. He was returned to prison in September 1996 having breached conditions of his release. He was again released in April 1997 having undergone further work with the probation and welfare service and having again been granted a progressive programme of temporary releases prior to his full release. He was returned to custody again on 31 July 1998 in view of further charges brought against him which were deemed to have breached his conditions of release. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment for indecent exposure on 7 September 1998. He was not considered for further temporary release until that sentence had been completed.

In the meantime he again undertook extensive work with the probation and welfare service in prison. He was granted accompanied temporary release for humanitarian reasons due to serious illness in his family in late January 1999. A programme of releases was then put in place as part of the process of attempting to reintegrate him back to the community. This programme was monitored, as normal by a review committee made up of prison headquarters officials, prison management and prison therapeutic services. The concerns of the local community were sought through the probation and welfare service and the Garda.

The offender began a series of unaccompanied temporary releases, one day per week, in the care of his father in October 1999. Mr. Olden noted a discrepancy in the record of what had or had not been decided in relation to the progression of these releases. I instructed the Director General of the Prisons Service to investigate this matter further and he reported that he had not been able to reconcile the accounts of the officials concerned. Both Mr. Olden and the Director General have said that this system failure was disturbing but that they both believe the offender would have been granted such a programme of releases on the basis of the information then available about him even if the proper procedures had been followed.

The Olden report and the observations of the Director General which accompanied Mr. Olden's report make it clear that at no stage was this case referred to me for decision or information. This was in line with the prevailing practice where an offender had previously been the recipient of the entire range of temporary releases, that is: escorted in handcuffs with a prison officer; accompanied by an officer, unrestrained; accompanied by either a chaplain, probation and welfare officer or approved person; and unaccompanied temporary release. It was also the practice that where a person serving a long-term sentence was returned to prison, due to a breach of conditions or conviction for an offence attracting a short sentence, that the management of his sentence including decisions on temporary release, would be continued by officials of the Prisons Service at headquarters level. This would be done in consultation with local prison management and the prison therapeutic services, without further reference back to the Minister or to the Sentence Review Group. Temporary release would only be granted after an appropriate interval in which the offender had completed the new sentence, if any, and undergone rehabilitative therapeutic work with the appropriate services within the prison.

(Mayo): Does the Minister not accept that to describe what happened in this case as a “system failure” and to be “disturbing” is a gross understatement? Does the Minister realise that this is a situation where Mrs. Nancy Nolan, an 80 year old retired national teacher, was clubbed to death in her own house by Thomas Murray, a convicted murderer? Was Murray not already serving a life sentence for fatally stabbing an elderly neighbour 21 years previously? Was he not granted temporary early release despite the fact that the Garda recommended that he should not be released, and that any application should be rejected? While on temporary early release, did he not break his midnight curfew? Did he not make lewd suggestions to local girls? Was he not suspected of setting fire to property belonging to a garda? Did gardaí not report that there was constant fear in the local community that Murray would kill again? In July 1998, was he not convicted of indecent exposure in Galway city? Immediately before the murder of Nancy Nolan, was he not granted 19 unaccompanied, unsupervised releases? Why was authorisation given for the release of this man – a murderer – in such circumstances?

I have explained that this is not a matter that would involve the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform after the original decision to grant temporary release had been given by the previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I am not suggesting that, if I had been Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in the year concerned, I would have refused the temporary release because it appears to have been the recommendation that was made to the Minister of the day.

This is a tragic case and the family concerned has suffered greatly. My deepest sympathy goes to them once again. However, there are circumstances where people are given release. In the vast majority of cases this seems to work out and people become rehabilitated. There are some instances where that does not occur. These are the exception although I am not for a moment justifying anything in relation to this matter. However, it would not be possible to introduce a regime where no risk at all would be taken – in other words, a regime under which long-term prisoners, life prisoners would not be released in order to try to see if they could be rehabilitated. It would not be possible to operate like that.

Does the Minister agree that following the events of and the conviction of 1998, alarm bells should have gone off indicating that this was not a prisoner who should be granted such release? Will he indicate if anyone takes responsibility for what occurred in this tragic case? Does he regard it as acceptable that in the context of the report and the further investigation he ordered, there are still two contradictory accounts of events that cannot be reconciled? Does he propose to take any steps to deal with that issue?

What guarantee can the Minister give us that there will not be a repeat of the type of failure within the system which he acknowledges resulted in the tragic death of Nancy Nolan? Is the person concerned currently under investigation in relation to any other alleged murder offences that remain unsolved?

I understand the individual concerned was under investigation in relation to certain matters but that no prosecution has been brought.

Is that investigation continuing?

I understand that it may well now be concluded.

In regard to Deputy Shatter's question on whether alarm bells should have gone off, I suppose it is easy to be wise in retrospect. There were localised meetings in relation to the individual concerned. It is true incidentally that in nearly all cases, the gardaí caution against releasing individuals. As I have said, one cannot operate a system of release, where one is trying to reintegrate individuals into society, without there being some risk, however small. I asked Mr. Olden to investigate the matter thoroughly and the director general to consider what improvements could be made following receipt of Mr. Olden's report. Five main recommendations were made by Mr. Olden, all of which have been acted upon in one way or another.

(Mayo): To say this was a systems failure is a gross understatement. Will the Minister apologise to the Nolan family for the manner in which the State neglected to protect their loved one? Does he accept that the warnings of the Garda Síochána in this case should have been heeded? The individual concerned was a murderer with a series of breaches of the terms of his early release. Will the Minister have the matter investigated again given that the Olden report contains a mass of contradictions in relation to the different versions of events which should be unravelled and resolved? The head of the person responsible for authorising this individual's release should roll.

I am deeply sorry that this should have occurred and I have extended my sympathy to the family. I am deeply sorry on behalf of the Department, the Prison Service, the then Government and this Government. The situation is, unfortunately, that an offender, for example, who is up for release may have committed even the crime of murder perhaps several years ago when he or she was very young. It does not mean one can then reasonably conclude that for the rest of his or her life that propensity to kill or cause injury would be such that conditional release could never be contemplated. We could not operate a system like that in any kind of humanitarian regime. It is true that looking back on what happened here, it is a grave tragedy that the individual was ever released. Of that there is no doubt. I confess it is not an exact science. Had I been Minister when the original temporary release was granted, I cannot, hand on heart, say that I would have said "no".

The real problem was 1998.

Top
Share