Ms Caroline Counihan:

I do not have a great deal to add to what Dr. Fitzgerald–O'Reilly has said. What I have read dates back a little while but it does not differ much in essence from what Dr. Fitzgerald–O'Reilly just said. My understanding is that it can be useful to have somebody monitored electronically for a fairly short period, as Dr. Fitzgerald–O'Reilly was saying, and it can be useful where softer intervention has not worked or the relationship between the offender and his supervisor in the Probation Service has not worked, not through any fault of the Probation Service but because the offender is a diehard determined to commit crimes one way or another. I understand it can be helpful where the criminal behaviour or the non-compliance with the order in question is associated with a particular geographic location. It is all very fine if the electronic monitoring system tells one so and so is no longer going to this place, that place or the other place but one should not be lulled into a sense of false security; it might be that the offender is now committing offences in an unmonitored zone. It has been said so often this morning that there is no silver bullet. In certain circumstances and for certain offenders, and as part of an overall risk-management strategy, monitoring can be helpful but, from what I have read, usefulness in terms of time and geographical area is strictly defined.