Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

They would only have been kept informed during the pilot project if they opted in and, I assume, the convicted person was engaged in community service in their local community. I can seek further information for the Deputy in so far as it is available.

On the question of opt-in or opt-out, the balance of convenience suggests an opt-in provision for a range of reasons. A substantial amount of the crime that goes through the District Court is of a minor nature. Individuals would not necessarily want to receive phone calls a few months afterwards to give them minor pieces of information about the offenders. They want to get on with their lives. Such a provision would also become very resource intensive if, in the context of every conviction of every individual, it was assumed that victims who did not even look for information or did not want it should be given minor pieces of information. There is an advantage in having an opt-in provision.

However, for certain crimes, such as the one which gave rise to the tragic death of Garda McLoughlin, we are looking at putting in place a provision whereby the survivors of any person who lost his or her life in similar circumstances would automatically be informed when an event occurs which could result in someone being released, for example, to perform community service in a local community or go to an open prison near where the family concerned resides. The balance of advantage in a broad range of crimes supports an opt-in provision but it is important that victims are made aware of the fact that they can opt in and that the facility is available. We are investigating what steps may be taken to ensure there is sufficiently wide knowledge of this. I have some concern that not all victims are aware of the capacity to opt in to receive information.

See this speech in context