Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Select Committee on Justice and Equality

Parole Bill 2016: Committee Stage

9:00 am

Photo of Frances FitzgeraldFrances Fitzgerald (Dublin Mid West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 32 tabled by Deputy Daly would require a report regarding a parole candidate to include the effect the granting of parole may have on the prisoner’s family and the likelihood that being granted parole would facilitate reintegration into his or her family. It is clear from section 19 of the Bill that a parole board may grant parole if, in its opinion, the person being considered for parole will not present a risk to society and releasing the person will facilitate the reintegration of that person into society.

From the cases I have seen, there is a significant level of information available to the parole board when considering cases. The parole board has all the information that is relevant, including how the prisoner has behaved, how he or she has dealt with disciplinary issues and if there has been contact with family. A wide amount of information is available to the parole board. In her amendment, Deputy Daly proposed to insert "the effect that the granting of parole may have on the prisoner's family". There are broader issues in regard to family. I understand the point the Deputy is making but the effect on the prisoner’s family of the actual decision is not really relevant to these considerations.

With regard to facilitating reintegration of the offender into his or her family, the parole board always considers the overarching matter of reintegration into society, which encompasses the aspect of integration into family. Having the effect on family in statute is problematic.

Amendment No. 63 to section 19 of the Bill makes a similar provision regarding facilitating reintegration with family. Under subsection(1)(b) of section 19, the parole board may grant parole to a person if, in its opinion, the release of the person in question would facilitate the reintegration of the person into society. That is the general point. The intention behind the Deputy's amendment is adequately covered in the provision as is. I note the comments of Deputy O'Callaghan with regard to amendment No. 62.

Both amendments seek to achieve the same aim and I will outline a concern as to possible consequences if this amendment is agreed. The effect of the amendment suggests that defendants who plead guilty to an offence would receive a positive benefit with respect to their being considered for parole. I agree that a defendant’s remorse or admission of guilt should be acknowledged. However, I do not believe that a defendant who fails to plead guilty should be negatively impacted in respect of release. Where a defendant pleads guilty this can be, and generally is, taken into account as a mitigating factor for the purpose of sentencing and that is correct. I do not agree that it is a relevant factor - Deputy O'Callaghan made this point - with respect to the release of the prisoner and I consider the criteria currently set out in the Bill to be sufficiently broad for the purpose of determining release. I repeat that I would not like to see offenders who have pleaded not guilty, as is their right, and were convicted following a trial having that choice and right possibly negatively impacting on a decision relating to their release.

Section 19 of the Bill provides that the parole board may grant release if the person being considered for parole will not present an undue risk to society and the release of the prisoner will facilitate the reintegration of the person into society. I do not see how the nature of the offender’s plea would inform either of those considerations. We are going back to the basic purpose of the parole board, which is assessing risk. That is really the key consideration at that point.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.