asked the Minister for Justice if, in the case of a person (details supplied) released from prison in 1986, (i) he was accorded full statutory remission of his sentence pursuant to rule 38 of the Rules of the Government of Prisons, 1947, and section 1 of the Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1907 (ii) consideration was given (a) by the governor of the prison or (b) by the then Minister for Justice as to whether he should serve the complete term of ten years imprisonment imposed on him, or whether he should be transferred to the central mental hospital as a prisoner, or committed to any institution for mental treatment on his release; (iii) any consultations or reports occurred as to his suitability for release or any danger posed by his release and whether any report or recommendation was made to the Governor, Department or Minister and, if so, by whom it was considered and what action was taken on foot thereof; (iv) the question of his continued detention or his behaviour as a prisoner was at any time considered by the then Minister for Justice or brought to his attention and whether any file in respect of him was brought to the attention of the then Minister; and (v) if it was decided in relation to him that he had become eligible for any remission by special industry or good conduct.
Written Answers. - Release of Prisoner.
Section 1 of the Prisons (Ireland) Act, 1907 allows provision to be made by prison rules to enable a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment to earn by special industry and good conduct a remission of a portion of his imprisonment.
Rule 38 (2) of the Rules for the Government of Prisons, 1947, provides that a male prisoner sentenced to penal servitude shall be eligible by special industry and good conduct to earn remission of a portion of his sentence not exceeding one-fourth of the whole sentence.
It is the invariable practice to accept that all offenders serving sentences of longer than one month are entitled to full remission unless all or part of it is forfeited as a consequence of breaches of prison discipline. In the case of the offender referred to by the Deputy no such forfeiture arose and, accordingly, the question of his entitlement to anything other than the full remission did not arise. The Deputy will appreciate that the nature of the crime for which an offender has been sentenced, or a view of his possible or likely behaviour on returning to the community, are not factors which could properly be taken into account in relation to the amount of remission which an offender actually receives.
No proposals were made to my predecessor that the offender in question should not be released in the normal way and, in any event, the Minister would not have had the power to prevent his release. The Deputy will appreciate that the courts, in deciding that a sentence of 10 years penal servitude was appropriate in this case, would have been aware of the provisions governing remission. Allowing for normal remission, the imposed sentence was served in full.
As I indicated in my reply to supplementary questions about this case last week, the offender, during the course of his imprisonment, was seen by a psychiatrist on 26 occasions. No decision was taken that a transfer to the Central Mental Hospital was warranted at any stage while he was serving the 10 year sentence.
The question of using the powers contained in the Mental Treatment Act, 1945 in so far as they would apply to an individual who has served his sentence is not a matter for the Minister for Justice. However, I should make it clear that in referring to these powers I am not to be taken as expressing a view as to whether their use would have been either possible or appropriate in this case.