We will now take for discussion the matter on which notice was received from Senator Robinson and which was allowed for debate. I might point out to Members of the House that the custom is, in regard to such a debate, that the Senator raising the matter, or other Senators, speak for 20 minutes and ten minutes is allowed for reply on behalf of the responsible Minister.
Adjournment Debate: Juvenile Remand Homes.
I decided to bring to the attention of the House the fact that there appears to be no proper remand or detention home for juvenile offenders, that is, offenders under the age of 16. The practice appears to have begun of committing these young offenders under the age of 16 either to the Bridewell Prison in Dublin or to the care of country Garda stations. I submit that this is an intolerable situation which should not be allowed to continue. I would be grateful for an explanation from the Minister as to what steps will be taken in relation to it.
The statutory authority and statutory duty are set out in the Childrens' Act, 1908. Section 108 of this Act places on every police authority the duty to provide such places of detention for every petty sessional division within their district as may be required for the purposes of this Act. These places of detention would serve both as remand homes and, where appropriate, as places of detention after sentence.
The problem arises because of the closure of Marlborough House Remand Home during 1972. The onus at that time was on the Government to provide alternative accommodation, which they have failed to discharge with very serious consequences for juvenile offenders. I should like to refer briefly to two examples of what happens as a consequence of the lack of proper facilities being provided.
There is a judgment in the High Court in the case of Hanley versus District Justice Butler and the Governor of Mountjoy: an unreported decision of the 3rd January, 1973, but which is reported in the Solicitors' Gazette of February, 1973. Mr. Justice Finlay held that a youth could not have been held in a place of detention provided by the Childrens' Act, 1908, as directed by District Justice Butler on November 16th for the most fundamental reason of all that no such place existed. He held that orders made by the District Justice, sentencing the youth to a month's imprisonment because the defendant was so unruly a character that he could not be detained in a place of detention in safety, were invalid. The youth had challenged the order of the district justice removing him from a place of detention because of unruly behaviour and committing him to prison. Mr. Justice Finlay held that there had not been evidence of unruly behaviour but that, in any case, the child being a youthful offender, should not be held in a place of detention because no such place existed. This was one occasion in January in the High Court when this matter must have come to the attention of the Department of Justice.
A more recent case which, I think, shows much greater hardship to the individual, and the individual concerned here is somebody under the age of 16, concerns a charge against a young offender that he committed arson in a certain premises in Dublin. I propose to read the report of this case in the Evening Herald of Tuesday, 15th May. The solicitor in question. Mr. Dudley Potter, asked specifically that publicity be given to this case and that the provision preventing publicity be lifted because he wanted to draw attention to the hardship involved. For that reason I think it appropriate to read that report on to the record of the House.
Is this case sub judice still?
We are not concerned here with the charge and I shall not be naming the individual in question. It is not the merits of the case that I am concerned with; it is the total absence of facilities for remanding youthful offenders, the fact that this boy was kept in the Bridewell for a number of days and the position obtaining there.
I am not challenging the point the Senator is making, but it seems to be possibly treading on dangerous ground to raise a case which may be still sub judice. The argument could possibly be made without actually referring to the case.
I submit that I am subject to the ruling of the Cathaoirleach. What I want to do in referring to this report is to quote the view expressed by the solicitor and the view expressed by the district justice—not about the merits of the case; I accept that it is sub judice and this House has no business in relation to it, but about the absence of a remand home.
This matter was taken under consideration when the question of whether or not this motion would be allowed was being considered. It is considered that it is perfectly in order to refer to the form of detention in the case without going into the details of the case. This is properly in order. If the matter were sub judice the whole discussion would be out of order.
At the Children's Court the solicitor, Mr. Dudley Potter, made the following statement which was reported in the Evening Herald on Tuesday, 15th May last:
Mr. Potter said that it was a matter of public importance that his client should be remanded to the Bridewell garda station because it was the only place as the law stood to where he could be sent, having failed to get bail.
"My client was detained in the cells of the Bridewell 24 hours a day. The gardaí, I know, did their best. But there is no place in the Bridewell where my client could have got exercise. There are no facilities. The cells at the Bridewell are to hold people for a few hours before they appear in court."
Mr. Potter described it as a "scandalous situation" that all juveniles under 16 had to be kept in the Bridewell if they were on remand and could not get bail. The Kennedy Report made recommendations three years ago which were welcomed all round by members of the legal profession.
The Attorney General's Office and the Minister for Justice at an earlier remand hearing of this case expressed concern that his client should have been detained in the Bridewell and applied that he be sent to Mountjoy.
"The Department of Justice has had three years since the publication of the Kennedy Report to rectify this matter, but they have omitted, neglected or chose not to deal with the matter," said Mr. Potter. "Marlborough House," he added, "which the report recommended should be closed down forthwith in 1970 was not closed down until 1972."
It was recommended that it should be replaced. It has not been replaced and there is no place where under 16 juveniles could be remanded to. He would be failing in his duty to his client and to the court not to draw this matter to the attention of the public.
District Justice Kennedy said:
"The lack of proper detention centres in Dublin is a great inconvenience to the Court. I thoroughly agree with you."
She remanded the boy to St. Patrick's because he had then reached the age of 16 years but that does not concern the Seanad.
I should like to refer to the Kennedy Report so far as it discussed the question of remand homes. On page 42 of the report it refers to the remand home system and quotes the authority of the Children's Act, 1908. On page 43 it says:
The Remand Home should be designed to provide a disciplined environment which will begin the process of the rehabilitation of the child at a time when he is experiencing an abrupt break with his familiar surroundings and to enable information to be gathered with the assistance of the courts about his history, background and personality. These Remand Homes should serve as Observation and Assessment centres.
Reports on the behaviour and character of children while in remand homes should be provided by the Superintendent at the request of the courts and there should be full facilities for proper examination by psychiatrists and psychologists and reports by psychiatric social workers.
Proper educational facilities should be provided and proper use of leisure time should be encouraged.
The Superintendent should be a suitably qualified person.
A remand home for girls which should also be an observation and assessment Centre, should be provided in Dublin and the question of providing one for the South and West of Ireland should also be considered.
There is a need for greater segregation in remand homes to prevent delinquent children mixing with non-delinquents and older children exercising an undesirable influence over younger children. Much could be achieved by adequate staffing and suitable layout of buildings.
The report goes on to examine Marlborough House, as it then existed, and to make serious criticisms of it. It says:
Marlborough House is completely unsuitable for the purpose for which it is being used. The building itself is old and was in fact condemned as dangerous as far back as 1957. It is run by a staff with no special training in child care. The attendants, who are recruited through the Employment Exchanges, are not required to have any qualifications which would make them suitable for the task of caring for children. It is obvious that their function at present is purely custodial.
Anything that could have been said in the Kennedy Report about Marlborough House, which has now been closed, can be said with far greater conviction with regard to the Bridewell. The Bridewell is worse than any other prison in Ireland. It has been called "the black hole of Calcutta" and it is an Irish "black hole of Calcutta". It is not intended that any adult prisoner stays there more than a few hours before he comes into court for the hearing of his case. Yet we are allowing a system in which 16-year-olds are remanded there. I understand that the authority for this remand is the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, section 25 of which provides:
The Court may, where it remands a person in custody for a period not exceeding four days, commit him to the custody of a member of the Garda Síochána.
This, apparently, is the authority on which young boys under the age of 16 years are remanded for periods of four days to the Bridewell or to a country Garda station where there will be no facilities for exercise, no attempt to get psychiatric help and nobody with any experience in child care; in other words, none of the recommendations which were made in the Kennedy Report are to be implemented.
The question is very much part of a larger question, namely, the necessity to have a reform of the children's law in this country. The charter relating to children is the Children's Act, 1908, which is very much outdated and which has none of the concepts in relation to child care which we now know of and which are present in the legislation of other countries. It is only the urgency of this particular aspect of it and the misery caused to the individual caught up in this process that prompted the idea of raising it in this House in order to get an undertaking from the Minister that alternative facilities will be provided and that these alternative facilities will embody, at the very least, the positive recommendation in the Kennedy Report that there would be a person there with experience in child care and that there would be a proper assessment of the child.
I understand that there is a remand centre in St. Laurence's in Finglas but it appears to involve such a small number that district justices cannot remand young offenders to it because the assessment process is a very severe one. They are anxious to get young people there who will respond to treatment. The intake is far too small to cope with the number who are either ordered to be detained after sentence or who are remanded pending trial or pending sentenced after some assessment takes place.
The Senator in her motion mentioned specifically the question of remand or something like that. I intend to deal generally with the custody of young offenders.
First of all, I should like to deal with her problem regarding the absence of remand facilities. I share her views that there is a problem in this regard. Offenders of 16 years and over can be committed to St. Patrick's Institution; the problem arises in regard to offenders under the age of 16 years. At the moment they can be committed to special schools, such as St. Laurence's in Finglas. This particular school is conducted on a voluntary basis by a religious order and they have the power under the Children's Act to refuse to keep a boy of unruly or difficult disposition. If a boy of that type is remanded by the court to St. Laurence's in Finglas, those in charge of the school are entitled to refuse to have him. There is a gap in our system and there is no place to which that boy can be committed; he has to remain free.
I understand that technically the Bridewell is a prison and, consequently in light of the High Court decision to which the Senator referred, it would not be proper to commit a young offender to that place.
Oberstown House?
I am telling the Senator what I understand to be the legal position. I am not saying whether or not I approve of what has been done. In view of the fact that there is a decision to the effect that boys under 16 years cannot be committed to prison, there is nowhere the courts can send a person certified to be of an unruly or depraved character. We have had the situation where young offenders, having been before the courts and convicted of quite serious offences, have had to go free because the persons in charge of the institutions to which they would normally be sent had refused to have them, and they are entitled to refuse to have them under the provisions of the Children's Act.
It was hoped that when Marlborough House closed down that the people conducting St. Laurence's in Finglas would make provision to keep boys of this particular type, but that expectation was not realised. At the moment discussions are going on between my Department and the Department of Education to try to overcome this very serious difficulty. I share the Senator's concern in this regard. She has my assurance that anything I can do to have this matter rectified, I shall do.
The position in regard to girls is better in so far as the institutions to which girls may be committed will take them on remand while awaiting trial, and are prepared to deal with the more difficult cases. What is going to be done with regard to the detention, other than on remand, of persons convicted is another problem. As the Senator possibly knows, St. Conleth's in Daingean is closing down shortly, and the school is transferring to new premises at Oberstown. It was hoped that a section of these premises would provide a high degree of custody security and that the more difficult type of absconder, such as a boy with a particularly tough record, could be accommodated there. Some difficulties appear to be arising in that case, too. There is some doubt as to whether the facilities in Oberstown will be available for this type of defendant. The people running these institutions feel that the "mix" of this type of boy with a boy of a less serious criminal background could be detrimental to the latter. Their efforts at rehabilitation could, therefore, be inhibited and frustrated if they were to allow the very unruly to mix with the moderately unruly.
On this question also discussions are taking place between the Departments and the interests involved. I sincerely hope that these discussions will find some compromise which will enable these boys to be treated by the people who will run Oberstown.
It is a very real and great difficulty and I am well aware of how serious it is. It seems an extraordinary situation that unruly boys, aged 15, when remanded by the courts, cannot be accommodated in any place of safety. Unfortunately, that is the position at the moment. I share Senator Robinson's concern about it and she has my assurance that what my Department and I can do to remedy it as speedily as possible will be done.
I thank the Minister for his approach to the problem. I would also like to ask him if he is prepared to say whether the whole question of the reform of the children's law is under consideration as a priority.
I can assure the Senator that it is. As she knows, this is only one aspect of it. The whole question of the treatment of delinquent children involved in the garda juvenile liaison scheme, and all this area, is under active consideration. I promise her that she will see reforms as speedily as is administratively possible.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.15 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 20th June, 1973.