Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am fond of these amendments and am taking them seriously, particularly amendments Nos. 46 and 51. This is against the backdrop of where the Bill currently provides for the parole panel to refuse somebody and not be considered again for two years. I am trying to replace this with a provision for one year as I do not accept the two-year rule. I am not sure if it is a resourcing issue but it is too long. The European Court of Human Rights has accepted periods of less than a year between reviews and rejected periods of more than a year as incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights Article 5.4. In Murray v.Parole Board, the English Court of Appeal stated the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights regarding parole review periods for life sentence prisoners was that for an interval of more than a year, the onus is on the state to establish a period is not in breach of Article 5.4.

This is really important and there is no logical reason a year could not be considered. Sentence length can be a kind of peculiar concoction in some ways, as it is not necessarily linked to rehabilitation. It is a mixture of punishment depending on the seriousness of the offence, tradition and how long prisoners are likely to move towards rehabilitation. All of those factors are put in. The parole system is really the only comprehensive way of keeping track in this regard to see if rehabilitation is working. Two years is just too long.

Earlier this year I was contacted by the partner of a prisoner serving a life sentence and this man has basically ticked all the boxes necessary to become eligible for parole. He has not been granted it to date because of delays in accessing therapeutic services that have been mandated to him but not provided. That is not his fault but it is holding up the entire process when he is carrying out his side of the bargain. It is preventing him from being paroled.

Instances like this cannot be addressed in the Bill, but by shortening the time period between parole applications pressure could be brought to bear in circumstances where, for example, the Irish Prison Service is not delivering services that would help the person to get parole, when he or she is doing all that is required and ticking all of the boxes. If the parole board was meeting the individual within a year rather than two years, for example, then the person could say that he or she did not get access to counselling and the board could then apply some pressure. I am trying here to overcome such problems and believe this amendment will make the Bill more human rights compliant, which is why I will be pressing it.