Written Answers. - Prison Sentence Management.
Paul Connaughton
Ceist:
1357
Mr. Connaughton
asked the
Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform
the new structures which have been put in place to assure the public that prisoners convicted of murder, when released from prison, will not be a threat to the general community; if the recommendations of the Olden report into a case (details supplied) have been fully implemented; if such recommendations will be in place when other similar prisoners are freed as in another case (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[15898/02]
The Interim Parole Board was established in April 2001 and advises me in relation to the administration of long-term prison sentences. Persons serving life sentences for murder may have their case reviewed by the board after they have served seven years in custody. The board, by way of recommendation to me, advises of the prisoner's progress to date, the degree to which the prisoner has engaged with the various therapeutic services and how best to proceed with the future administration of the sentence. I consider in full all recommendations put before me by the Interim Parole Board before making the final decision regarding sentence management.
The Olden report was commissioned in light of a conviction of a person, already serving a life sentence for murder, for a second murder committed while on temporary release from Castlerea Prison. The terms of reference to Mr. Olden were to review and report on the management of his sentence up to that time; specifically report on the procedures followed leading to granting-revocation of periods of temporary release to this prisoner and to make any observations and recommendations considered appropriate.
This report was published on 6 July 2001 and contained five main recommendations concerning (i) early formal review meetings, (ii) referral back to the Parole Board, (iii) formal records and levels of decision-making, (iv) staffing arrangements at headquarters level and in support of the Parole Board and (v) prospective dangerousness-risk assessments.
In order to ensure that the procedural deficits identified in this case would not recur, my predecessor as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, instructed the Director General of the Irish Prison Service to implement the recommendations contained in the report.
The progress on the implementation of each of the recommendations of the report is as follows (i) early formal review meetings: the report recommended that formal reviews of serious offenders should take place at regular intervals and the views of all concerned at each meeting should be recorded. It also recommended that the therapeutic services in the prison should pay close attention to these offenders from the very beginning of incarceration and that a clinical assessment should be offered to the offender.
Formal reviews covering all prisoners do take place at regular intervals and the therapeutic services in the prisons are available to all prisoners. While it is up to each prisoner to make use of the therapeutic services, it is recognised that there can often be a problem in terms of delays in accessing the services required. The Prison Service's plans for the implementation of positive sentence management with the formulation of sentence planning for all prisoners, but especially long-term prisoners, will further address this recommendation.
(ii) Referral back to the parole board: the report recommended that a prisoner on a programme recommended by the Parole Board, or the sentence review group previously, who significantly breaches his or her conditions of temporary release should be referred back to the Parole Board for a formal appraisal of the case before any further temporary release is allowed. All such cases are now referred back to the Parole Board.
(iii) Formal records and levels of decision-making: the report recommended that formal rules should be made relating to the recording of measures proposed at review meetings in the prisons. Decisions as to any programme involving release from the prison on any basis or any significant change in a programme ought to be made at a relatively high level, at least the level of principal officer, and the decision should be conveyed in its written form to the governor of the prison concerned.
The Director General of the Prison Service has reported that he has taken steps to ensure that all concerned in the decision-making process are aware that any progression of a long-term prisoner's programme involving temporary releases must be referred to the director of operations at the minimum and that a local review, unless it involves the director, cannot approve such significant changes to a prisoner's sentence manage ment. In addition, all prisoners in the long-term category who are returned to prison due to serious breaches of conditions must have their cases referred to the Director General and, prior to any further release being granted, the Minister must be referred to for decision. Decisions concerning any programme involving release from prison must be conveyed in writing to the governor of the prison.
(iv) Staffing arrangements at headquarters level and in support of the Parole Board:
the report states that great care should be taken in assigning the staff to work on the administration of long-term sentences and, if at all possible, persons should have experience of the operation of the prisons and the problems of prison management before being assigned to that particular work. The rotation of staff in and out of such delicate areas of operation ought to be minimised. Staff who are working for the Parole Board should be full time and distinct from the departmental staff working in the prisons division.
The establishment of the Prison Service as a separate agency is a key policy development which has presented an opportunity to implement this recommendation. The Interim Parole Board is resourced with a full-time secretariat in separate accommodation to both the Prison Service and the Department.
(v) Prospective dangerousness-risk assessments: the report recommends that the Department-Prison Service ought to avail itself in the future of the formal tools increasingly becoming available in assessing prisoners in relation to potential dangers. These tools ought to be availed of to enable an objective set of criteria to be established which can be applied to the progress, or lack of it, that the individual prisoner is making in the course of his or her imprisonment and to the likely outcome if he or she is released.
The application of a formal risk matrix approach as recommended in the report as an additional discipline which could bring further rigour to consideration by both the Prison Service and the Interim Parole Board of prisoners' cases will continue to be investigated and developed further.
In addition to these five recommendations the report makes a general conclusion:
the report concludes that the prison administration, in endeavouring to give effect to the policy of reintegrating prisoners, where possible, into the community, while taking on board the views of the Garda Síochána, must be prepared to take the risk of releasing persons about whose behaviour there must always be some doubt. The report states that it would be a reversal of policy and a real mistake to take the easy way out and say that no risk will be taken in the future.
Our prisons are increasingly populated by offenders serving long sentences. Should the possibility of early release in conjunction with rehabilitative work be ruled out for such offenders, especially lifers, serious issues would arise in our prison system. We would then have an increasing proportion of prisoners without prospect of release or hope for the future. The ultimate consequences of such an approach would be considerable and would be contrary to the guidelines of both the United Nations and the Council Of Europe in relation to the treatment of prisoners.
While the recommendations contained in the Olden report have resulted in a more formalised approach to the monitoring and assessment of prisoner cases, it must be stressed that there is no guarantee that every single prisoner who will be processed through this revised structure will remain crime free upon release. However, as the Olden report stated, the vast majority of persons sentenced to life imprisonment do not seriously offend after release.
I assure the Deputy that all persons sentenced to life imprisonment are dealt with under the procedures as outlined above. In addition, as the Deputy may be aware, I am currently considering, in the context of my previous involvement in the second specific case mentioned by the Deputy, the extent to which special arrangements may need to be put in place to deal with recommendations of the Interim Parole Board in that case.
