Ms Maria McDonald:

Regarding the effectiveness of prisons, I am in a difficulty in that, as I mentioned at the start, all our members would have different views on the use of prisons. For example, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties would have a very different view to Advocates for Victims of Homicide. I will speak about the matter in the context of fines, which I think were discussed with the Irish Penal Reform Trust, IPRT. Some members may be familiar with a Bill published by the former Minister, Mr. Alan Shatter, namely, the criminal justice (community sanctions) Bill. The Bill concerned fines and the amending of the manner by which they are carried out. Mr. Shatter indicated that he wished to set up a specific fund through which fines would be paid out to victim support services. I see it in this context: if one is looking not to put somebody in prison and fining them instead, cognisance should be taken of the victims' issues. If those moneys were then put into victim support services to facilitate counselling or support services for victims of crime, the Victims' Rights Alliance would see this as very beneficial. In addition, it may be a means whereby it would be more appropriate that the individual not then be in prison; rather, that he or she is contributing back to the community through the money he or she is affording to those circumstances.

Regarding the demand for restorative justice, victims and the benefit they are seeing in this respect, as the committee already knows, the Probation Service runs a programme for offenders. Victims have the option to benefit in that they are asked whether they want to participate in the programme. It is up to the individual victim. Much work and research is being carried out on victims of sexual abuse engaging within the restorative justice process. Some of our members would have very different views on this. For example, some of them think it would not be appropriate in particular circumstances, but it is very obvious that it is up to the individual victim whether to engage in the process. Some research indicates that some victims of sexual abuse, particularly within family circumstances, have found the programme beneficial. Again, it is up to the individual as to whether he or she engages with it. I can give the committee an example of a case in which it would be inappropriate to request a victim to engage with the restorative justice process. I refer to a case reported in 2014 in The Irish Timesin which a judge requested that a victim at a sentencing hearing consider engaging in restorative justice after a very lengthy trial process during which the accused, who had sexually abused the victim as a child, had not accepted any of the facts of the case. Furthermore, the accused still did not accept the facts even after having been found guilty. The judge asked at the sentencing hearing whether the victim would like to engage in restorative justice. This obviously puts a victim on the spot. He or she will not be familiar with the information and it would not be appropriate in such circumstances for him or her to engage with the programme. I am familiar with restorative justice processes that have occurred in the midlands regarding the Travelling community whereby, as some members would be aware, there can sometimes be feuding and other issues between families. One day someone is a victim of crime and another day that person is an offender. In that context, the programme was incredibly successful in the midlands community, and the cases which came before the courts significantly reduced as a result of that restorative justice programme. However, funding for the programme was subsequently cut and the cases started to come back before the courts again. Fewer victims were involved as a result of the restorative justice process, so it can be incredibly beneficial.

Regarding the parole process, I have had sight of the Deputy O'Callaghan's Bill and the Sentencing Council Bill 2017. The one thing I would note from the Parole Bill 2016 is that victims are kind of absent from it. I understand that a very objective board is needed but, at the same time, I note that the Sentencing Council Bill 2017 makes reference to individuals who have knowledge regarding the welfare of victims of crime. The welfare of the victims of crime can be very different to somebody who is working with a victim support organisation because, in the latter context, somebody could be potentially objective.

Regarding training, it is very important the Judiciary is involved in any parole process, but I believe any laypersons- for want of a better word - involved should undertake appropriate training to understand the difficulties and trauma experienced by a sexual abuse victim, for example. Based on the victims' directive, they are actually required to engage in such training anyway - for example, if writing written statements to the Parole Board. The example I gave was a Parole Board member using the word "revenge", I think because the individual did not understand the trauma these victims go through and the reasons they put certain information in victim statements. If they have greater understanding of this trauma and are given training in victims' rights, needs and interests, a Parole Board member would be, as I said, much more able to deal with the matter as appropriate.