Ms Deirdre Malone:

The Irish Penal Reform Trust’s mission statement calls for respect for the human rights of everyone in the penal system, which includes prisoners, prison staff and also victims - namely, everyone. The trust welcomes the invitation from the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality to address it on the general scheme of the criminal justice (victims of crime) Bill.

Broadly speaking, the Bill is a positive step forward for the reform of law. I endorse the comments already made on the need for resources, services, investment, training, support, specialist services and the centrality of the best interests of the child. The protection of victims’ rights is not incompatible with or detrimental to the rights of accused or convicted persons, provided that the general principles of equality and non-discrimination, access to justice and due process continue to be supported. The Irish Penal Reform Trust supports the Bill but has a small and limited number of concerns.

Our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights require that where we legislate for measures that may constitute an interference with the right to privacy, such measures must be properly assessed as to whether they are proportionate and necessary for the prevention of crime or to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The recital of the EU victims directive states that the rights set out therein are without prejudice to the rights of the offender. To this end, our submission highlights selected aspects of the Bill’s general scheme, the first being victim personal statements which falls under head 9.

The inclusion of victim impact statements is already provided for in section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. We call for the broader sentencing guidelines for guidance on the weight to be attributed to the victim personal statement. We see a limited risk in that the highlighting of certain sentencing principles over others may inadvertently give rise to a failure to consider other equally important sentencing considerations, including proportionality, the circumstances of the offender and the offence, aggravating and mitigating factors and reintegration and rehabilitation. This can be easily remedied with the insertion of the words "in accordance with the ordinary principles of sentencing" in the relevant section. It is also vital to ensure the current express procedural protections set out, namely the exclusion of any prejudicial comment on the offender or comment on the appropriate sentence to be imposed and the service of the statement in advance, should be preserved in future iterations of the legislation.

Our second issue relates to heads 10, 18 and 25, provision of information to victims and families concerning release, escape, etc. The provision of information throughout this process is absolutely essential. The only question we raise is the conflation of information about release and the conflation of information about escape. These are treated as the same in the directive where they clearly have different implications. There is no doubt that where authorities know, or ought to know, of a real risk from an offender, all reasonable steps should be taken to protect any victims from harm, including immediate notification of the fact of release or escape from prison. It would protect both victims and those who have served a sentence if there were a clear protocol in risk assessment and how it would be applied. Where no risk of harm to a victim has been identified, we would urge the committee to consider countervailing factors, including risk of reprisal, impact on rehabilitation and reintegration.

Regarding parole board hearings, the general scheme provides for disclosure of information on related decisions. It is unclear for what purpose such information would be disclosed. If the disclosure were limited to the date, time and outcome of the hearing, that may be proportionate in appropriate cases. In many cases, parole board hearings can include detailed information on medical, psychological and personal matters. Like Canada’s Victims Bill of Rights Act, we would hope the provisions of this Bill will not interfere with the discretion which may be exercised by any person or body authorised to release an offender into the community. This is an important provision which would clarify the appropriate parameters of victim input and would honour the point that successful reintegration after imprisonment prevents recidivism and, ultimately, assists victims.

We welcome the important provision on restorative justice schemes in the Bill. The definition of "victim" in head 2 is clear. Between 2011 and 2014, over 3,500 assaults took place in our prisons. There are also incidents in child detention schools and other secure facilities such as nursing homes. How will the directive be effectively implemented to protect all victims, even those we may not immediately think of as victims? There is no doubt that within our secure care facilities and other places of detention, specific attention will need to be paid to the introduction of measures to prevent secondary victimisation, retaliation or intimidation and avoid the creation of conditions of solitary confinement or prolonged isolation, which can be used as a measure of protection but can cause irreversible damage to those subject to such conditions.

I very much welcome the inclusion of IPRT at this hearing. In the end, we all want the same, namely justice, equality, fairness, punishment that is meaningful and proportionate, and safer communities.