Ms Molly Joyce:

The report says more than six months for a regular review and points to the 2001 Act, which is, I think, a review after an initial period of 21 days, and refers to the disparity between that. I will leave it to my colleagues from Galway to talk about best international practice in terms of what might be a better approach.

The IPRT is in a unique position because, as I said, this is information gathering for us. From our perspective what is really aligning, and really stood out to me from this report, was that we often are looking at the lengths of time people spend in prison obviously but hat is very definite. People know when they are going to get out most of the time, unless they are under a life sentence. Even then, there is a very clear process that they are going to follow. What struck from the report is that it does not appear that there is any kind of clear pathway. There is a pathway that people are told that they need to work through in order to come out and they have this review board. I am concerned that the there is no indication whether an ongoing continuous review will take place every four, eight, 12 or 25 years.

I wish to flag one thing that one of the lawyers commented on in the report - this is something I know from my background as a lawyer - namely, that clients will often say that they do not want to plead not guilty by reason of insanity because they know they could end up spending a lot longer in the CMH than would be the case if they were sent to prison. That is a real concern, and it is a very good question to be asked about what is a better approach. My colleagues may have examples of international best practice.