Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 24 May 2018
78. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the cost of each of the two reports commissioned into the release of a person (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23012/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra79. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Question No. 126 of 10 May 2018, the basis upon which he referred to the original report (details supplied) as a draft and operational in view of the fact that neither of these terms is in accordance with the facts of the terms of reference or the investigation. [23013/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra80. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Question No. 126 of 10 May 2018, if the facts surrounding the release of a person (details supplied) were established in the report which resulted in the IPS incorporating aspects of the report into Circular OPS 12/2011. [23014/18]
Amharc ar fhreagra81. Deputy Clare Daly asked the Minister for Justice and Equality further to Parliamentary Question No. 126 of 10 May 2018, the detail of the legal and procedural flaws in the original investigation conducted. [23015/18]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 78 to 81, inclusive, together.
I am advised by the Irish Prison Service (IPS) that the Terms of Reference for the original external report was to investigate the case of a specific person and to report directly to the Director General. It was considered an operational matter as it related to an incident that occurred in the Dochas Centre. It was not envisaged that the report would be furnished to any party to the enquiry.
As had been outlined in the answers to previous Parliamentary Questions relating to this matter, a review of the report by the Director General of the IPS highlighted some legal and procedural flaws in the way in which the enquiry was conducted. This included the fact that there was an absence of documentary evidence to show that all of those who had participated in the enquiry were given an opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the comments attributed to them by the investigators. In addition, where third parties were named, such individuals were not given an opportunity to respond.
In order to address those issues a second external investigator was appointed to review the original report and try to bring the enquiry to a satisfactory conclusion. Regretfully, for reasons outlined in the answer to Parliamentary Question No. 156 of 8 May, 2018, it was not possible to do so.
I am further advised by the IPS that, notwithstanding the legal and procedural flaws which were highlighted in the original report, the recommendations were reviewed on their own merits to see if they could benefit the operation of the Prison Service. Some of these recommendations were incorporated into Circular OPS 12/2011 'Consolidated Guidelines for Prisoners Released on Temporary Release' which was supported by the 'Consolidated Temporary Release Guidelines' which issued in 2012. The recommendations which were incorporated were that prisoners should have the terms and conditions of their temporary release explained to them, that the prisoner must acknowledge the conditions of the temporary release and sign the Temporary Release form, the prisoner must consent to being granted a period of temporary release and that a written record of the decision must be placed on the Prisoner Information and Management System.
I am also advised that the total costs associated with the commission of the investigation report was €32,140.60 and €900 for the review. This amount included payments which related to travel and associated expenses.
