asked the Minister for Justice whether he is prepared to hold a public inquiry into the conditions in which prisoners are held in Irish jails.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Prison Conditions.
13.
The answer is "No." While the question does not ask me to give any reasons, I think that, especially in view of various comments to which publicity has been given, it would be appropriate that I should make a statement for the information of the House. I have, there-fore, prepared a statement but, as it is rather long, I am sure that the House would prefer if, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I had it circulated with the Official Report.
Question No. 14.
I can put down more questions then.
I am quite prepared to read it out but it is quite a lengthy statement.
Following is the statement:
Public Inquiry into Prison Conditions.
Calls for a public inquiry into conditions in prison relate either to the physical conditions or to the way in which prisoners are treated by prison staff or to both these matters.
The physical conditions in prisons are matters that can be seen and checked by anybody who walks about the prisons and accordingly the setting up of a public inquiry to establish what they are would be not only unnecessary but clearly inappropriate. Already, newspaper editors and other journalists have seen the physical conditions for themselves and I have invited representatives of the two Opposition parties to visit them.
The second ground on which a public inquiry is sought is to investigate allegations of brutal treatment of prisoners, either in the sense of their being physically assaulted or in the sense of being subjected to degrading treatment, unjust deprivation of recreation, and so on. Most people with an interest in prison matters are aware that prisoners have a right—which they freely exercise—to complain to the Governor about any matter which they feel justifies a complaint and, over and above that, they have an unrestricted right to complain to an independent visiting committee.
What is, perhaps, not generally appreciated is that, in addition, they can go into court and, subject to the approval of the court, be represented at State expense to have such an allegation investigated on the basis of sworn evidence. When I say that this can be done at State expense, I mean that the State pays the fees of the solicitor and counsel for the prisoner. No fewer than 11 prisoners have gone to court in this way in the last 12 months and in every single case their complaints were refuted by the sworn evidence of prison staff, staff who were open to crossexamination by counsel for the prisoner concerned. We have, there-fore, reached a stage—and I record the fact without comment—where prisoners convicted of serious crime have what in practice seems to be an almost unrestricted right to go back into court at the expense of the tax-payer and, without any risk to themselves, make allegations against prison staff which turn out to be unsustainable. I should mention that the 11 cases I have referred to are only the ones which actually came to a hearing; in fact there were about 20 other such applications to the courts which the courts refused without finding it necessary to call for evidence from the prison authorities.
I am aware that, for reasons that have not been clearly stated, it has been suggested in some quarters that a court is not a suitable tribunal to establish whether a prisoner has been subjected to ill-treatment or otherwise deprived of his constitutional rights. The suggestion appears to be that the laws of evidence are too strict, though that suggestion is not made when the same prisoners are themselves before the courts on criminal charges. In fact. the severe restrictions that undoubtedly exist in the laws governing evidence in criminal cases are of little relevance to the kind of legal action which a prisoner takes against the prison authorities since that action is, in form, a habeas corpus action and is in substance nothing less than a judicial inquiry where the facts can be ascertained at least as well as they could be ascertained by any other tribunal. Incidentally, in none of the 11 High Court cases to which I have referred has there been any question of any member of the prison staff refusing to answer questions on the grounds that an answer might tend to incriminate him.
May I recall to the House that I myself suggested, when in Opposition, that an inquiry would be useful, not because I believed the allegations might be true, which I did not, but as I said at the time, because I was of the opinion that it would give prison staff an opportunity to defend themselves against what I believed then and still believe to be a campaign of vilification. I was not then aware that many of these allegations had already been dealt with and rejected not only by the relevant visiting committee but also by the High Court after full investigation on the basis of sworn evidence given in open court.
It is now clear that, although in case after case the prison staff have been vindicated by the High Court, this fact makes no difference to certain groups. Verdicts or findings, whether by the High Court or by any other competent authority, are simply disregarded by groups of that kind and it is quite apparent that even if there were a public inquiry, its findings would be brushed aside by the complainants unless it said the sort of things that those groups wanted it to say. In the meantime, while the tribunal was sitting, we would have the problem of prison officers being subjected to public character assassination by people against whom there was no effective redress. In fact there is now no room for doubt that the policy of some of these groups is to subject prison staff to as much mud-slinging and intimidation as possible in the hope that they will be afraid to do their job.
In saying this, I want to make it quite clear that I accept without question the bona fides not just of Deputy Browne who asked the question but of a number of other persons and groups as well.