Dr. Mary Rogan:

Returning to the question of electronic monitoring, the most important question is what it will be for. Other countries which form part of our study introduced electronic monitoring to reduce the number of people in pre-trial detention. The rates were so high that an alternative was sought to try to bring those numbers down. That does not seem to be the purpose behind the proposed introduction in this case, which is instead additional monitoring for individuals in certain circumstances. What is the value of that? I will share the experiences of the other countries which were part of our study. Participants from other countries expressed serious doubts about the ability of electronic monitoring to prevent offending. In all of the countries which had electronic monitoring, there was evidence that practitioners were unclear as to what the purposes and real practical possibilities of electronic monitoring were. It is not possible to have a scenario where one has eyes on an individual at all times and in all circumstances. The experience has also been that it imposes many logistical and administrative burdens on a court in trying to set it up and then in monitoring the experience after it has been imposed.

An important question, which has not yet been answered in Ireland, is what the purpose of electronic monitoring is. Is it to reduce pre-trial detention rates or is it something else? One might get different answers depending on one's perspective. I strongly recommend that evidence is taken from those responsible for administering these systems in other countries, for example, Belgium and the Netherlands.

I would be very happy to support any such requests to the research partners in our study to facilitate that to hear what the exact experience is.

The 2015 and 2017 Acts took steps to reduce the likelihood of bail being granted in certain circumstances but maintained the discretion. As Ms Malone stated, what we have seen in our study through our observations and interviews is there are multiple factors present in any discussion about whether bail is to be granted or not. Limiting discretion for a person who has the opportunity to hear all that evidence, including the various concerns and possible ways to address those concerns, would be quite a significant step and a big change in our approach to pre-trial detention. We have very clear evidence from the other European countries in our study that when there is more emphasis on risk of offending as a ground, pre-trial detention rates tend to go up. That is the information; people may have views on whether it is a good or bad thing but it is the likely outcome. It is something to be aware of. It is why I am recommending an impact assessment of the numbers who are likely to be placed on pre-trial detention as a result of the Bill.