Vol. 467 No. 2
5 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Justice, further to her statement in Dáil Éireann in an Adjournment debate on 13 June 1996 that prison staff made every effort they could to assist a prisoner (details supplied) to cope with her first experience of prison, the specific efforts, if any, that were made in this regard by way of medical or other treatment sought or received by the prisoner prior to her death; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [13046/96]
24 Ms O'Donnell asked the Minister for Justice the circumstances surrounding the arrest of a woman (details supplied) and her imprisonment in Mountjoy Prison; the circumstances surrounding her detention; the medical or other treatment that was offered to or received by her prior to her death; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [12852/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 24 together.
This tragedy was discussed in an Adjournment debate recently, but the Minister feels it is necessary, in view of the questions, to outline the circumstances again.
The deceased was committed to Mountjoy Prison at 10.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 22 May 1996, pursuant to an order issued in the Dublin District Court earlier that day. She was remanded to appear again at the District Court on 27 May 1996 at 10.30 a.m. The deceased had been before the court previously, but had failed to turn up for her hearing on 16 November 1995.
The deceased was allowed to make a telephone call to a friend, immediately upon her committal to Mountjoy Prison. She was then escorted from the main gate of the prison to the women's prison by a female prison officer who stated that the deceased was calm and appeared to be in good form during all stages of her committal. On her arrival in the women's prison, two officers spent some time talking to the deceased and informed her that she could have a visit the following day. She then changed into prison issue night-wear and appeared to be coping well with her situation.
During the committal stages, the deceased was asked if she was a drug user and she said she was. She was then advised she would be requested to give a urine sample the following morning for the purposes of undergoing a detoxification course, if she wished. This is not an unusual occurrence, but a situation the prison authorities face on a daily basis. The deceased did not seek any medical treatment-assistance or medication.
The staff who met and spoke to her did not consider she required any treatment. She was not manifesting any signs of physical or mental stress and was brought to a single cell. If the deceased had sought medical assistance, or the staff who were dealing with her had considered that she required this, it would have been provided. A medical orderly was available, a doctor was on call and the services of a hospital across the road could have been availed of, if necessary.
The officer who was on night duty in the women's prison on the evening in question checked the deceased on a number of occasions during the night and recalls that, during her check at 1.00 a.m. she observed her in her bed reading a magazine. She asked the deceased, as is the practice when an offender is sitting up at that hour, if she was all right and she said that she was fine. Shortly before 1.30 a.m. the officer again checked the cell and found the deceased hanging from the bars of the cell window. She immediately alerted a senior officer who unlocked the cell and cut the sheet which was tied around the deceased's neck and secured to the cell bars. Staff immediately tried to revive her and help was summoned from the main prison. An ambulance was also summoned. A medical orderly rushed to the women's prison and immediately commenced cardio pulmonary resuscitation. He failed to get a response but continued his efforts until the arrival of the ambulance. The deceased was taken to the casualty unit at the Mater Hospital where she was pronounced dead at 2.5 a.m.
The tragic death of this young woman will be the subject of an inquest in accordance with normal practice. The circumstances of the death have also been examined by the suicide awareness group in Mountjoy Prison. The Governor has advised that he has examined the circumstances surrounding the death and is satisfied, as indeed the Minister is, that the staff made every effort they could to help the deceased cope with her first experience of prison. The Minister is also satisfied that nothing more could have been done to prevent this tragic loss of life.
Strenuous efforts are made by the prison authorities to identify offenders who may be at risk and, where such offenders are identified, they are given special attention by prison staff with the specific objective of minimising the risk of self-injury. Offenders whose behaviour suggests that they have psychiatric problems or that they might make an attempt at committing suicide are referred to consultant psychiatrists who visit the prisons regularly and, if the psychiatrist considers it necessary they are transferred to the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum, for the necessary treatment.
While the Minister is satisfied that all concerned are fully aware of the need to be vigilant in this area, it has to be accepted that it will never be possible to identify every possible potential suicide victim or to eliminate every possible avenue or self-injury. However, we cannot escape the fact that where an offender is determined to take his or her life, and not infrequently there is not prior warning of any such intent, the scope for prevention is limited. The Advisory Group on Prison Deaths acknowledged in chapter 4 of its report, published in August 1991, it has to be accepted that if a person is sufficiently determined to take his or her own life it is virtually impossible to prevent it.
The Deputy is aware that the Minister has established a national steering group under the chairmanship of a senior prison governor to oversee the local suicide awareness groups in the various institutions. The group will include in its membership some of the most experienced representatives of prison management and staff and medical practitioners who are now involved in prisons management.
The group will be assigned the task of reviewing and overseeing the implementation of the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Prison Deaths published in 1991. The group will also provide a forum for collating the reports of the local suicide awareness groups within the institutions and disseminating significant findings or lessons learned throughout the prison system. Trends in prison suicide in other countries and their prevention will also be monitored. I join the Minister in extending sympathy to the family, relations and friends of the deceased.
I join the Minister of State in expressing heartfelt condolences to the family of the deceased who died in the custody of the State. I thank him for his response which was more comprehensive than that which I received on the Adjournment Debate.
There are procedures in place for identifying and monitoring prisoners at special risk and, as stated by the Minister of State, such offenders are usually placed under special observation. Is he aware that, according to the report of the Advisory Group on Prison Deaths, remand prisoners are statistically a greater suicide risk than sentenced prisoners and the risk increases significantly if they are drug addicts or first time prisoners, as was the case with this person? Was this prisoner identified by the reception process as being at special risk and, if not, why? She presented with the various criteria associated with special risk prisoners. Was the elaborate reception procedure for identifying and monitoring special risk prisoners followed?
I explained at some length that none of the prison staff had reason to believe this prisoner was at risk of attempting to take her life. All the procedures were followed. The people involved have a great deal of experience in identifying prisoners at risk but there was no indication that this prisoner was at risk. It was a shock to everyone when she took her life.
Is the Minister of State aware that, under the recommendations of the prison deaths report, this person would have been in the special risk category because she was on remand, a drug addict and a first time prisoner? Despite the subjective observations of the prison staff, will the Minister of State accept that under those three objective criteria she ought to have been placed in that category?
Those who admitted her were aware of her history and kept her under observation. I do not want to waste the time of the House again——
It is not wasting the time of the House.
——going back over the steps taken to place this prisoner under close observation. There were no indications to the experienced observers, who were aware of her history, that there was any possibility of her attempting to take her life.
The Minister of State did not answer my question. Was she identified as a special risk prisoner? If so, she should have been observed every 15 minutes. I conclude from his response that she was not monitored every 15 minutes.
The Minister of State indicated that this matter will be the subject of an inquest. Is he aware that under the Coroners Act an inquest is confined to a determination of when, how and where a person died and does not inquire into the circumstances of the death? When will the inquest be held? Is he aware that only one of the prison deaths which took place in 1995 has been the subject of an inquest? Why is there a delay in holding such inquests?
If the Deputy gives notice of the specific questions she has asked on when the inquest will be held and the reason for delays in inquests either the Minister for Justice or I will be happy to reply to them. As regards the prison authorities, both the Minister and I are satisfied they did all that was required of them. Every step necessary was taken but despite that, unfortunately, the prisoner took her life.
The Minister referred to the prison deaths report published in 1991 following a spate of suicides, particularly in Mountjoy Prison. That report made 57 recommendations to deal with suicide in prisons. How many of those recommendations have been implemented? In reply to an Adjournment debate the figure of 50 was given. Which seven have not been implemented?
Questions appertaining to the report to which the Deputy referred are separate matters.
They arise from the Minister's response to an Adjournment debate on this death.
The contents of the report ought to be the subject of other questions.
My question arises from an Adjournment debate reply on this death earlier this week when the Minister said that 50 of the 57 recommendations are, or are in the course of, being implemented. Which seven remain unimplemented?
The Deputy's question refers to a specific case.
I will try to be as helpful as possible, but I am aware of the time available. I have quite an amount of information in my brief on this question, but I do not think I should take up the time of the House with it.
Will the Minister give the numbers?
There is an elaborate strategy in place for the prevention of suicides in prisons, but unless there is to be a total denial of all personal privacy to all prisoners at all times, the possibility of suicides in custody cannot be precluded, no more than they can be precluded in the wider community. Some 50 of the 57 suicide prevention recommendations made by the advisory group on prison deaths have been implemented or are in the course of implementation. The ones which remain to be implemented include the provision of a committal assessment centre and a new female prison designed to meet the specific needs of women prisoners, with a level of services appropriate to them. These remaining recommendations are more long-term in nature, a fact acknowledged by the advisory group. The recommendations will be implemented in the context of the overall development of the prison system.
