Ms Fíona Ní Chinnéide:

I thank the Cathaoirleach, Senators and Deputies. The Irish Penal Reform Trust, IPRT, is delighted to meet the joint committee today to speak on the issue of spent convictions. We will do our best to respond to any questions members might have following our opening statement. For 25 years, the IPRT has been promoting policies that make communities safer, based on evidence of what works to prevent and reduce offending and reoffending.

One of our long-standing campaigns is for an effective spent convictions scheme in Ireland to allow people who are law-abiding and have stopped offending to move on with their lives. It is rooted in the recognition that having a criminal record presents barriers in the context of the protective factors that we know promote desistance from offending, including employment, education and training, accommodation, volunteering, insurance and travel, among others.

There are two existing schemes for expungement in Ireland. Section 258 of the Children Act 2001 applies to convictions for offences committed by children aged under 18 years, while the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016 applies to offences committed as adults. The IPRT’s position is that while the relevant provision included in the Children Act 2001 generally meets its rehabilitative aims, the spent convictions Act 2016 is so limited it fails to fulfil its rehabilitative purpose. Limitations of the 2016 Act have also been identified by the committee in its 2018 report on penal reform and sentencing, the steering committee for the national drugs strategy, in the Mulvey report and, by application, in the analysis of the Irish Human Rights Commission of previous versions of the legislation. To that end, the IPRT strongly welcomes the Criminal Justice (Rehabilitative Periods) Bill 2018 introduced by Senator Ruane as a positive step towards a better system and, in particular, the introduction of a new approach to dealing with offending by young adults aged 18 to 23 years. However, our position is that the Bill could go much further to facilitate reintegration and rehabilitation.

Our recommendations are as follows. The limit on the number of convictions that can become spent should be removed, as previously recommended by the Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC. It is draconian, where a person has two convictions, other than minor motor or public order offences, that neither can ever become spent. Ireland’s extremely conservative approach to allowing just one conviction ti become spent is an outlier in Europe. Two or more convictions for separate offences does not indicate a pattern or propensity for offending but rather a set of circumstances or factors that contribute to offending. It could be immaturity and impulsivity, or it could be poverty, mental health issues, homelessness, addictions, experience of violence or domestic abuse. Expanded spent convictions legislation would present an opportunity to support people who have recovered from such circumstances and moved on from offending to lead law-abiding lives.

Eligibility of convictions that can become spent should be expanded by increasing the limit to 48 months for custodial sentences, as in England and Wales and, shortly, Scotland. Concerns about specific categories of offence that would be included could be addressed separately through vetting in regulated areas of work.

Rehabilitation should be incentivised by setting proportionate and reasonable rehabilitative periods. They must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the punishment received and should not be so long as to act as a disincentive. The current position where it takes seven years for a minor fine to become spent is completely disproportionate.

We recommend that the Employment Equality Acts be amended to ensure prospective employees would not be discriminated against on the basis of a conviction that had become spent. Discrimination can and should also be addressed through policy interventions such as the “ban the box” campaigns in the United States and the United Kingdom whereby questions about convictions would be removed from application forms and delayed until later in the recruitment process. Of course, this would not deal with other areas in which there is discrimination such as accommodation or insurance.

It should be recognised that rehabilitation is at the heart of a victim-centred criminal justice system. Research has found that crime survivors want the criminal justice system to focus more on rehabilitating people, rather than punishing them, by a margin of two to one. They want the person who harmed them to be held accountable, but most of all they want him or her to desist from reoffending.

Broadening access to spent convictions supports rehabilitation and reduces barriers to employment, education, housing and more. This, in turn, reduces the likelihood of reoffending, crime and the number of victims. The IPRT, therefore, asks the committee to consider amending the Criminal Justice (Rehabilitative Periods) Bill 2018 in line with our recommendations and to progress the legislation as a matter of priority.

I thank the committee for its invitation and attention on this issue. I emphasise that it represents an opportunity for it to support safer communities and a more equal society. My colleague Ms Michelle Martyn and I are ready to respond to its questions as best we can.