Deputy Enright gave me notice of his intention to raise the question of a young person, as outlined in an article in the Sunday Independent on Sunday, 24 May last (details supplied) who was convicted of burglary and sentenced to prison and the fact that the court order was not implemented by the authorities because of the lack of available custodial accommodation. The Deputy has five minutes to present his case and the Minister of State has five minutes to reply.
Adjournment Debate. - Non-Implementation of Court Order.
On 6 February 1992, in the Dublin District Court, Judge Fitzpatrick convicted and sentenced a youth to four months in St. Laurence's detention centre in Finglas. The charge was a serious one in that it involved a stolen motor vehicle. The youth was convicted of allowing himself to be carried in this stolen vehicle.
When the warrant was issued by the District Justice, the Garda enforced it and they brought the youth as directed to St. Laurence's detention centre in Finglas. The youth, however, was refused admission to St. Laurence's apparently because of a lack of accommodation and he was immediately released back onto the streets of Dublin.
This matter must be considered as an example of very serious neglect of duty by the Government. It is a typical example of the revolving door system that operates in Mountjoy and in many of our prisons and detention centres in this country. It is to a large extent responsible for the increase in the level of serious crime that has occurred in recent years. The failure to detain this youth also displays a flagrant disregard by the Minister and his Department of a sentence imposed by our courts.
It has further come to my attention that the youth in question is at present on remand in custody, charged with the murder of an 18-year old Air Corps apprentice, Keith Wall, on 17 March last at Balfe Road, Walkinstown. I am not aware of any of the other facts relating to this murder charge and I do not intend discussing or dwelling on any aspect whatsoever of this particular case as it is sub judice. What is relevant, however, is the fact that this alleged offence of murder, with which this youth is charged, occurred during a period of time when he should have been serving his sentence in St. Laurence's detention centre in Finglas.
If in fact the order of 6 February 1992, had been enforced then the youth would have been lawfully detained in St. Laurence's detention centre. The Minister for Justice has a clear duty to explain to the House why the court order of 6 February 1992 was not enforced. In the event of a satisfactory explanation not being forthcoming the Minister for Justice, Deputy Flynn, should apologise publicly for his failure to implement the order of the District Court and assure this House and the citizens of this country that such a situation will not arise in the future.
To compound the seriousness of this situation, last Thursday 21 May, Judge James McDonnell sentenced the same youth to two years detention in Trinity House, Lusk, on serious burglary charges.
The Garda Síochána enforced the warrant of the District Court and brought the convicted person to Trinity House, Lusk. The youth was refused admission to Trinity House, as the detention centre was full.
There has been a significant increase in the level of indictable offences in the last three to five years. However, the increase last year was the greatest single increase, by almost 8 per cent in the last ten years. The increase is alarming and the responsibility for this increase rests with the Government. One of the main reasons for such an increase is that persons convicted of serious crimes are brought to prison and in many cases are refused admission and allowed back out onto the streets.
No real attention is being paid to the victims of crime. A young girl must be protected and feel safe to go to a disco, a dance, or to walk the streets. Elderly people should not be afraid of being attacked in their homes at night as they are at present. There is a duty on the Government to protect our citizens which they are not doing. They are failing in their duty. The revolving door system that is being enforced at present must end immediately and the Minister must ensure that there will be no recurrence of people being refused admission to prisons after being convicted by our courts of committing serious crimes.
The case to which the Deputy refers is a tragic one for all concerned. I am sure Members of this House have no desire to add to the anguish that has already been caused to so many people. At the same time, however, it is important that any misunderstandings regarding the involvement of custodial facilities operated by my Department in this unfortunate case should be clarified and I thank the Deputy for affording me the opportunity to do so.
It is regrettably the case that the youth in question had been involved in a number of breaches of the law prior to the incident which has resulted in the situation that he is now awaiting trial on a murder charge. The youth in question was committed by the courts, on 6 February 1992, to four months in St. Laurence's Industrial School arising from a charge of larceny. However, under the terms of the Children Act, 1908, as amended, which governs the operation of industrial schools, such schools are limited to the admission of boys who are under 15 years of age on the date of admission. The youth in question was over 15 years of age at the time of referral and, as such, was not eligible for admission to St. Laurence's Industrial School under the terms of the 1908 Children Act. I am not aware of any effort having been made to secure an alternative placement at that time.
More recently, on 18 March 1992, the youth in question was remanded by the courts to Trinity House in respect of assault charges. He was subsequently re-remanded on several occasions up to 14 April 1992. On reappearing in court on that date he was charged with murder and was further remanded to Trinity House. On 13 May 1992, he was remanded to Trinity House until his trial date on the murder charge. The authorities in Trinity House await notification of the trial date.
Most recently, on 21 May 1992, the youth appeared before the Children Court charged with trespass with intent to steal and was committed to two years detention at Trinity House on that charge. The authorities in Trinity House were unable to facilitate the court on the specific long term committal because of the non-availability of long term committal beds at that time. However, in ongoing exercise of the remand order of 13 May 1992, the youth was nonetheless accommodated in a remand place in Trinity House and will remain there on remand until his trial date. In the meantime arrangements will be made to ensure that a long stay committal place will be available at Trinity House should the courts so require following the hearing of the murder charge.
The House will agree that in so far as it has been possible to do so, the custodial facilities operated by my Department have facilitated the courts in regard to this case. At the same time, however, one would have to be concerned at situations where inappropriate referrals can result in undesirable releases from custody. The resolution of such problems lies in closer liaison between the courts and the custodial facilities and my Department will shortly be raising this and other relevant issues with the Department of Justice to seek a more satisfactory arrangement for the future.