Dr. Mary Rogan:

I thank the Deputy for the question. The first thing to say is that it is a notable feature of our system that we have such a wide range of very flexible conditions which can be imposed on a person and can be tailored to the particular concern which the court has about him or her, be it flight risk, evading justice or reoffending. That is potentially very extensive and can involve multiple conditions and requirements on behaviour. In the study that we completed, we observed bail hearings and interviewed practitioners, judges and staff of the Probation Service. There was also a strong view among our participants that a standard list of conditions is imposed in every case; the signing-on condition, the curfew condition, being contactable by a mobile phone and staying away from certain areas or people. Some of our participants, notably defence practitioners, criticised what they saw as a tendency to impose a "kitchen-sink" approach to conditions. It is very important to tailor conditions to target the precise concern. Our system of conditions is already very extensive and very flexible, notably so in comparison with our European neighbours.

It is absolutely necessary to consider the question of full information before a court. That implies a very well-functioning IT system and a well-functioning system for sharing data between the various criminal justice agencies and within individual agencies. That is a very important recommendation. The monitoring of conditions to make sure that the court has the full information before it is really key.

The second question is about monitoring of conditions generally. That is definitely a question for Garda resources. In reference to the third question, the individuals who come before the courts are the same cohort who are within the prison system. We know from multiple studies that the backgrounds of most of those individuals are characterised by problems with housing, addiction and mental health. That was very much borne out in the research we completed. Our participants referred to a lack of housing as a major impediment to a person who is trying to live a better life. Addiction and mental health were major concerns. What do we do in that scenario, if those factors are making it more likely that the person is going to either not turn up for their trial or to commit offences while on bail? That is where we get into the area of bail supervision and support schemes. The Extern scheme for young people, which has been mentioned, received a great deal of praise among our research participants, who felt it was very effective and it was working.

Finally, it is very tempting and completely understandable in discussions like this to view the bail hearing as an opportunity to intervene. A person has come to the attention of the authorities. There is a strong suspicion against him or her and he or she may have a prior record which is very troubling and worrying. We immediately rush to that moment and wonder what we can do at that point. Naturally we turn to legislation to ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again. That fails to see the multiple stages in the process where what is going on with this person has not been identified, and the previous encounters with the judicial system which have not prevented them from coming to the attention of the courts again.

We often see a sticking plaster with bail where we say we will intervene and do what we can right at that point, which limits our focus on what might really have an effect, which is to address what is going on and the underlying causes.

We already have an extensive system of conditions. Full information before court is essential. Monitoring needs to be looked at. There are some questions there. The issue of supervision and support also merits attention.