Dr. Joe Garrihy:

I thank the committee for the invitation to contribute to the discussion of general scheme of the inspection of places of detention Bill 2022, and its facilitation in the circumstances. I am an assistant professor of criminology at Maynooth University's school of law and criminology. I am a specialist in penology, including national and international frameworks, policies, prison systems and prison literature. I hold a PhD in criminology from the UCD school of law. My research generally focuses on diverse areas, including prison officers’ occupational cultures, "cocooning" in prison and minority ethnic and foreign national prisoners in Ireland. My collaborative and co-produced work has established relationships with colleagues here, including with those in the IPRT, the Irish Council for Prisoners Overseas, the Pathways Centre, the Irish Prison Service, the probation service, as well as HM Prison and Probation Service in England and Wales.

I welcome the production of the general scheme as a key step towards the ratification of the optional protocol and its associated progression in prison oversight in Ireland. The development and consistent review of an effective system of prison oversight should not be an aspiration. It should instead be the minimum standard required of the State, and the general scheme presents an opportunity that must be grasped to ensure that this occurs. I will briefly mention three key areas, but I am happy to discuss my written submission, and that of Dr. Marder, afterwards. These areas are: the independence of the proposed inspector of places of detention, IPD; the clarity of roles, obligations and expertise of the proposed IPD; and the implications and opportunities for replacing or reforming prison visiting committees.

The ratification of OPCAT is imperative, but, under article 18 of the protocol, oversight bodies or NPMs must have, in perception and practice, full independence from prison services, including their management and staff, and Government officials and Departments. This independence must include, but is not limited to, financial affairs and resourcing, publication capacities, staffing and the commissioning of external expertise. NPMs must be precisely that, preventative rather than reactionary. The pernicious effects of imprisonment are well rehearsed in the literature and imposing sanctions must be proportionate, while avoiding known collateral harms.

I acknowledge that the general scheme is a draft and that further work will provide additional details and clarifications on several matters. However, what is proposed will benefit greatly from clarity in many areas, including around language, structure and content on topics such as IPD powers, obligations, expertise and resourcing. Questions remain about these issues and the opportunities afforded by the spirit of the proposed Bill would be best served by careful, evidence-based decisions in these areas.

What is proposed in the general scheme will have major implications for the reform or replacement of prison visiting committees, while overdue, fundamental questions must be addressed directly about the aims, role and structures of the committees. To maximise the utility and effectiveness of any future form of prison visiting committees, due regard must be given to issues such as such a committee's role clarity and powers, the appointment of chairs and members, term limits, diversity and representation, training and expertise, publications, visibility and engagement with people in custody.

I appreciate that these comments are necessarily brief, but I am happy to elaborate further upon request and I look forward to the forthcoming discussion.