Two-thirds and one-third of the time available will leave the proposer 10 minutes to speak and the Minister five minutes to reply.
Private Members' Business. - Adjournment Debate: Absconding of Prisoner.
I may not take up the 10 minutes because I believe this is a matter that should have been dealt with by private notice question. I am seeking information, not to make a statement. I merely want to ask the
Minister why a convicted murderer was at large for seven days without the general public being told of it. The history of the case is well known; it has received plenty of publicity in the week-end papers. I am disappointed that the Department of Justice have still remained silent.
The Minister may say that I do not know all the facts of the case. I shall not therefore accuse the Minister of something I am not sure of, but I am sure that there is general alarm particularly in the area where the crime was committed. There are people there who gave evidence during the trial and they were afraid when they heard this man was at large. Does the Minister believe that he was doing justice to these people? This man could have acted out of revenge, remembered the names of the people and could have taken his revenge when he got out of jail. They should have been told he was at large. This is a matter of sufficient importance to have been dealt with, in my view, by private notice question. It is important to allay the fears of these people who feel that their lives are in danger and that there is some threat to them. I believe the Department of Justice have fallen down in not meeting that demand.
I do not want to be taken as being against parole nor am I against the parole of a person convicted of murder, but this is a particular case and the murder was a gruesome one. The whole circumstances of the case would suggest to me, if I were Minister for Justice, that particular care should have been taken. I would support the liberal views of any Minister in power in dealing with an application for parole. After all, this man served 11 years and in the normal course he should have been discharged as many murderers are discharged with normal remission of sentences for good behaviour and so on. I wonder why this man was continuing to be kept in prison.
Why did the Department of Justice not make the public aware that this man had broken parole and absconded? Why, when the news was leaked to the press and became public property through the medium of the national newspapers, did the Department still remain silent? My purpose is not to take up time; my reason for raising the matter on the Adjournment is that I want the Minister to make known the facts of the case. There may be considerations in the case with which other people including myself would have sympathy. There may be hidden factors which would lead us to make the same decision as the Minister for Justice made, but we do not know these facts. The case is such that we demand a full report. I hope the Minister will deal with the matter in every detail in his reply.
: I am not clear what the Deputy has in mind when he says he wants to know why the Minister made this decision——
Not to tell the public the man had absconded.
The practice has never been to issue statements about the affairs of prisoners and the only occasion——
On a point of order——
I did not interrupt the Deputy and the Ceann Comhairle has told me that I have only five minutes.
The Minister should be allowed to make his statement.
I do not want to interrupt but if the Minister does not understand what I am asking how can he reply? I want the Minister to explain to the House why the public was not told that a paroled prisoner who was a murderer and a high security risk had escaped. It is information about that I want.
If the Deputy will sit down I might be able to attempt to tell him.
The Minister will now speak without any further interruption.
The phrase "a high security risk" has been used here and it was used in a draft question that the Deputy submitted in relation to "a high security prisoner." This man was certainly not in that category. He was currently imprisoned in Arbour Hill Prison, Dublin which is certainly not a high security prison but one from which no prisoner would have any great difficulty in escaping. During a period of one-and-a-half years beginning in April 1974 he was transferred by the then Minister for Justice to Shelton Abbey, Co. Wicklow. This is an open prison, just a house, no walls or locks or anything of that kind. He could have walked out at any time if he wanted to. The previous Minister for Justice allowed this man on a regular basis beginning in April 1977 to attend religious services accompanied by a private citizen. This practice has now been going on for nearly a year. The last occasion on which he attended a religious service with this civilian was, I think, on 5 March of this year. He did not return after that service. On two previous occasions prisoners convicted of murder who were out on parole failed to return to the prison at the specified time.
Both of these occasions, which were not connected with each other, occurred in 1974. The then Minister for Justice did not make any statement to the newspapers in respect of either of these two cases. As far as I can recall there was no demand, out-raged or otherwise, genuine or mock, put up in this House that the then Minister for Justice should have issued statements in relation to those two convicted murderers. One hesitates to differentiate between different prisoners or to seek to ascribe degrees of gruesomeness to murder, but certainly the two who absconded in 1974 were murderers who had been found guilty of murders of undoubted brutality. There was very little detail of how this prisoner carried out his crime because the body was not discovered for a long time afterwards and it had been destroyed by lime. The crime in question took place more than 12 years ago. This prisoner has been in prison for an unusually long time, but efforts have been made to prepare him for his ultimate release, and naturally it is part of the preparation of a prisoner for his ultimate release that he, in common with many other prisoners, should be paroled from time to time.
At the moment eight persons who were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder are on temporary release under the supervision of the welfare service while residing in their own homes or in accommodation provided for them. One person similarly sentenced goes from prison every day to his place of employment, while three others are allowed regular outings from prison. Of this total of 12 eight of the 12 cases was approved by the last Minister for Justice. In none of the cases can it be said with certainty that the person concerned is not going to commit serious crime again, but it is felt and hoped that the risk involved is low. No Minister for Justice can guarantee that any prisoner is not going to commit crime again, but there has to be an element of risk when people are paroled. On the other hand, one is dealing with human beings, and these abnormally long sentences which are sometimes served after somebody is convicted of murder can have the effect of totally crushing the spirit of any individual. It is the duty of the Minister of the day and his officials to seek to rehabilitate such people.
Statistics sometimes can be of some use and interest, and I would like to give very brief statistics in relation to this matter. Taking the extreme case of murder it is interesting to note that in the past 35 years no instance is known where a person who was convicted of murder in this State was convicted of another murder subsequently. It is also interesting to note that in recent times only three persons— including the person now in question—who were serving life imprisonment for murder absconded while on temporary release. The two other offenders involved, who, as I have already said, absconded in 1974 were subsequently apprehended, one of them after some days and the other after about a month. No statement was issued by the Minister of the day or the Department at the time. Those two prisoners have been on temporary release on several occasions since then.
I do not think the Minister or the Department have acted in any improper way here. If they were to issue statements in relation to this matter it would certainly be against all precedent and it would in my view be against the better judgement and wisdom that should be exercised on an occasion like this because it would only creat scares and publicity, and it would frighten people unnecessarily. It would perhaps force the man when he sees himself described in the newspapers and so on as dangerous or, as he has been described here tonight, a security risk, to contemplate things he would not otherwise contemplate. I am satisfied that in every way the proper and appropriate steps have been taken in this case and I hope that the Garda will have every success in their task in apprehending this man.
I wish to put on record that I appreciate the information the Minister gave and the way he gave it, but in fairness to the man would it not have been better to do that immediately the escape became public rather than have it brought up and discussed in this House?
The debate is closed.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.55 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 April 1978.