Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 12 May 1993

Vol. 430 No. 6

Adjournment Debate. - Censorship of Prison Mail.

Mr. Shatter

Last weekend a story was published in our newspapers which made it clear that a victim of sexual assault over a number of years was being harassed by way of letters coming out of the prison system from the person who had been prosecuted and convicted for sexual assault and sexual abuse. It is grossly unacceptable that persons convicted of sexual offences should be free to send threatening and intimidating letters to their victims while imprisoned and that no action is taken by the prison authorities, even when such letters are first seen by them.

Rule 63 under the Prisons Act, states: "If the contents are objectionable"— that is the contents of a letter —"it shall not be forwarded or the objectionable part shall be reased according to discretion". That rule applies to the censorship system that operates within our prisons in regard to correspondence being sent by prisoners while imprisoned.

It seems that that rule has now been watered down to the effect that if correspondence is sent out of our prisons which details matters that might affect the security of the prison, the prison authorities will interfere in that correspondence, but if that correspondence contains other matter that is objectionable, nothing is done.

I believe the Minister is familiar with the nature of the correspondence which received widespread publicity. I do not wish to detain the House by repeating what was contained in it but suffice to say that the correspondence was objectionable on its face. One of the letters that came out of the prison and which was delivered to the home of this victim of sexual abuse for many years had the prison stamp on it. It had been examined by the prison censors and had gone through the system. The letter should have immediately resulted in bells of alarm being rung in the mind of the person reading it. It was clearly a letter that could do nothing but cause distress and upset to the recipient having regard to the background relating to that prisoner's sentence. I find it difficult to understand why that letter was let out of our prison system.

The State has a duty to ensure that all necessary protection is given to the victims of sexual assault and indeed other crimes. Immediate steps should be taken by the Minister to ensure that no further correspondence comes out of our prisons such as the letters recently received by the incest victim from Kilkenny.

We need legislation which will make it a criminal offence for any person convicted of a crime to send threatening, intimidating or harassing communications to either the victim of their offence or to persons who gave evidence at their trial. In dealing with the area of sexual offenders I do not believe either of those two remedies are of themselves sufficient. It is correct to say that the Whitaker report recommended that we bring to an end the censorship of correspondence coming out of our prisons. Perhaps the theory as opposed to the realities of life have impinged on us in this area with regard to that recommendation in the light of what took place and what was publicised over the weekend in this case.

The problem with sexual offenders sentenced to terms of imprisonment is that too frequently they do not understand the enormity of their behaviour, they do not understand or comprehend the impact it has had on their victim and they do not understand the fear their victim still has of them following their sentence to imprisonment. Too many victims of sexual offences who give evidence in court and find that the people they have given evidence against are convicted continue to live in fear of what will happen when the person sentenced to the term of imprisonment is released from prison. That fear can be greatly exacerbated by the type of correspondence sent in this case.

The great failure of the Government is that it did not provide a proper, coherent, comprehensive treatment system for sexual offenders. The pilot scheme in Arbour Hill Prison was effectively shut down by the Minister's predecessor almost two years ago. When I raised that matter in this House one year ago I was told by the then Minister for Justice that a committee was being formed to examine the matter to see what could be done. As I understand it to this day we do not have a proper treatment system for sexual offenders, a system which ensures services are available so that the person convicted learns to understand the enormity of their behaviour, its impact on their victim and ensures that on release from prison they are not a threat either to previous victims or to other people.

The Minister should tell us this evening what she is doing in this regard other than forming committees. If we are to ensure that future correspondence of this nature, and other behaviour that gives rise to alarm on the part of victims, does not occur it is essential we have a comprehensive treatment system within our prison service. In the context not just of sexual crimes but also other violent crimes it is also important that we have legislative change which creates a new criminal offence also in this area.

The State must act so that those who commit crimes such as the crime in this case cannot continue even while in prison to make the lives of their victims a misery. The Minister has a duty to ensure that that is the case. I hope she will be able to tell us this evening of specific action being taken as opposed to the deliberations of any committee that may have been formed or which might be formed.

Minister for Justice (Mrs. Geoghegan-Quinn)

It is the long standing practice of the Department of Justice not to comment on the circumstances of individual prisoners. I propose, therefore, to confine my remarks as far as possible to censorship of correspondence within prisons generally.

Censorship of letters to or from prisoners is provided for in the Rules for the Government of Prisons, 1947. Rule 59 (1) states:

Communications between prisoners and their relatives or respectable friends by visits and letter may be allowed ... subject to restrictions imposed for the maintenance of discipline and order in the prisons.

Rule 63 states:

Every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor or other responsible officer deputed by the Governor and initialled by him, and if the contents are objectionable, it shall not be forwarded, or the objectionable part shall be erased, according to discretion ...

The power given in Rule 63 is wide and is certainly sufficient to confiscate correspondence which clearly would cause distress to the recipient. The reality is, however, that censoring officers may be expected to have regard primarily to the maintenance of discipline and order in prisons and to the tendency in recent years to move away from strict censorship. In the open centres and training unit, for example, censorship is not normally part of the regime. Moreover, the Whitaker report, as Deputy Shatter rightly states, recommended at paragraph 7.23: "that as a general rule prisoners' mail should not be screened and-or censored except where, in the judgment of the Prison Governor, this is essential to good order and security".

In a case where discipline and order in the prison is not compromised and where the intended recipient is a close relative of the sender, a censoring officer is presented with the difficult choice of censoring the letter even though a close relative is involved, or allowing the letter to issue on the basis either that the recipient does not have to read it or that the recipient would be free to tell the governor that further letters of that kind should be stopped. Having said all of that — and again without commenting on the circumstances of any particular case — I think it is evident that the widespread unease which responsible people have voiced in recent days concerning the issue of threatening letters by prisoners to their victims needs to be addressed and I propose to do that.

This is by no means an easy matter to deal with because one has to have regard not only to the rights of victims but also to the rights of offenders to communicate with people on the outside. It is necessary also to take account of the reality that the manner in which some offenders communicate might be considered by people of different background to be threatening or offensive where neither threat nor offence is intended.

Complex issues arise also, for example, where the offender and his victim have a family and the offender communicates with their children in a manner which while not in any way intimidating to the children may still be quite distressing to the victim.

While it is not possible to cover all the situations that may arise by introducing a single rule of practice, I have decided that straight away we should provide that victims in sexual abuse cases should have the option of saying whether they wish to receive correspondence from the offender.

That option, on its own, however, might prove a little too stark in certain cases because correspondence from the offender can contain a mixture of threat, which the victim clearly does not wish to receive, and other information they might need to know. I would, therefore, envisage that victims might also be given the option of having correspondence from the offender forwarded, with the offender's permission, to a friend nominated by the victim who could keep her informed of matters of which she might need to know. These arrangements will be put in place quickly. In the meantime I should say that the flow of correspondence from offender to victim in the case which gave rise to this debate has been stopped.

With regard to telephone calls from prisoners to people on the outside, the position is that all such calls are made in the presence of senior staff in the prison who place the call and check that the intended recipient is prepared to talk to the prisoner. In other words, there is already a degree of protection in this regard.

Having looked at this situation carefully over the past few days I would have to say that while the changes I have just announced should certainly improve matters, there is no way of guaranteeing absolutely that people who have been victims will never come to know of threats that may be made by offenders. Threats can be conveyed in the course of visits or through third parties such as ex-prisoners. It is necessary to bear in mind too that it is by no means inevitable that knowledge of threats would be detrimental to the longer term interests of a victim. It could be very important in a case where an offender is coming to the end of his sentence that his victim should know of any threats he may have made while in custody. In any case where a victim does become aware of the expressed intentions of an offender, it is, of course, vitally important that the Garda be informed so that they can take the necessary precautions when the offender is about to be released.

I hope that the arrangements I am putting in place, a Cheann Comhairle, will allay the public unease which has been expressed on this issue. In the course of what I have said, however, I have made no bones about the fact that there are no simple solutions, because I think it is important that the House and the public should know of the difficulties involved.

One final point I would like to make is that I am extremely conscious of the difficulties which the process of censoring letters can pose for prison staff, who already have a tough job on their hands. Over the past few days I have become aware of the detailed circumstances of the particular case which gave rise to public unease and I can say that nobody in possession of all the details could reasonably suggest that the prison staff concerned had failed to perform their duties properly. I hope that the new arrangements I have put in place will be of assistance not only to victims but to prison staff also in dealing with these difficult situations.