Dr. Mary Rogan:

It is absolutely an honourable intention to seek to reduce offending and offending on bail. Offending on bail is an insult to the public. It is a harm to victims and communities. We all share the same objective, which is to make sure communities are as safe as possible and that people are protected. It is a matter of differences in our approach to what might be the most effective way of achieving this. The question of offending while on bail is linked to the broader question of prolific offending generally. While this is not a suggestion for a legislative amendment, it definitely merits further analysis by the criminal justice agencies in conjunction with research into the extent of prolific offending and re-offending and the factors that can be influential in reducing them. That may well include more monitoring and supervision - indeed, this is likely. It may well include recommendations on legislation. A study and analysis at Department level of prolific offending and reoffending would be very useful.

On the broader question of what legislation can do, I would go back to the penal policy review group from 2014. We had historic highs in prison numbers, a feeling that the objectives of penal policy were not clear and a feeling that there was a lack of energy or even enthusiasm for what we could achieve to make sure our communities were safer. The review group sought to take stock of the penal system as a whole and to suggest a blueprint for what might actually work to improve our penal policy and reduce the rates of offending. The penal policy review group comprised senior members of the Department, senior members of the Irish Prison Service and the Probation Service, a judge, a consultant psychiatrist and people from civil society organisations. I was a member for a period - the members can take that into account in their analysis. All of these individuals who were very experienced in the criminal justice agencies decided that in the end, the most effective approach was a whole-of-government approach. Such an approach understands that crime is a multidimensional, multifaceted issue within which legislation absolutely plays a role but where the more likely effective outcomes are to be found outside of legislation. We have to bear that in mind. When it comes to possible duties and things to be imposed, it would be really interesting to see what would happen if we placed a duty on all Departments and agencies to co-operate to prevent crime. That might be around the information sharing side and it might also be about bringing Departments and agencies together to put forward policies across the board seeking to prevent crime and promote safer communities.

I also want to mention the victims' directive, which is really important. The penal policy review group emphasised that the directive must be monitored in the context of its full implementation. If we are to address the concerns of victims properly, we must ensure that this legislation is being fully implemented and monitored at all stages. Ms Malone mentioned that quite robust legislation is already in place. In some of the seven countries we studied, there is extensive use of risk of offending as a ground. We found evidence in our research that 90% of pre-trial decisions in Austria are made on the ground of risk of offending. The same frustration exists among Austrian practitioners and participants about crime rates, reoffending and all the concerns we share about the effect of crime on people.

In summary, it is absolutely the case that something needs to happen. It is a question of finding the best mechanism to make it happen. While legislation has a role to play, it is not always the most effective mechanism. I reiterate the need to incorporate the perspectives of health, social policy and mental health into these kinds of discussions.