Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire (Cork South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Ar an gcéad dul síos, ba mhaith liom a rá go mbeimid ag tacú leis an mBille seo. Is Bille praiticiúil agus luachmhar é. B'fhéidir go bhfuil sé beagáinín déanach ach tá sé úsáideach agus beimid ag tacú leis. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this Bill today. It certainly has been a long time in coming. It provides for mutual recognition of judgments and probation decisions with a view to the supervision of probation measures and alternative sanctions. Mutual recognition is a central part of the order of European law and is a significant part of the European arrest warrant. It is important that there are safeguards within that, which is a point to which I will return. In this example it is of value. The Bill is, to a large extent, technical in nature but it is actually quite practical legislation and it makes sense. Every year thousands of EU citizens are convicted of offences while temporarily abroad in other member states. The proposals of this legislation are part of a package of measures aimed at ensuring such offenders comply with the penalties or sentences imposed on them while maximising the chances of effective rehabilitation or reintegration into the communities in which they live and to which they will return. Its implementation would mean that those convicted of an offence may serve probation decisions and alternative sanctions in their country of ordinary residence. The Bill also provides for the procedures to apply if an offender who has been sentenced abroad seeks to serve a probation decision or alternative sanction in Ireland.

The benefits of this measure have been outlined by several agencies. The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights report from 2016 states that social rehabilitation:

is to be achieved by having persons serve their sentences, or having suitable alternatives to detention (probation measures) supervised, ‘closer to home’. The Framework Decision on probation and alternative sanctions also aims to improve the protection of victims and the general public while encouraging suitable alternatives to detention.

Likewise the European Commission has noted that prisoners overseas are often more likely to face custodial sentences when compared with nationals living in the jurisdiction, as the sentencing judge may consider supervision and probation measures to be inappropriate due to a fear that a sentenced person may not participate or may flee the jurisdiction. It is to be hoped that the proper implementation of the framework decision will give greater confidence to judges here and abroad that alternatives to custodial sentences will be properly served, monitored and implemented abroad and in the home country of the offender.

As I stated at the outset, the Bill is a long time in coming. The deadline for the implementation of the framework decision was 6 December 2011. We have missed that deadline by seven years. The only other jurisdiction that has not implemented the framework decision is Britain, which is a point to which I will return.

The value of these measures has been well outlined by me, the Minister and the other speakers but, while not wanting to be too fussy, I take slight issue with one of the points raised by Deputy O'Callaghan, which related to revelations that the Garda youth diversion project was not working to maximum capacity. I have no issue with it. It is important to state that the Garda youth diversion project was not the issue, rather it was the non-referral of cases and the referral of cases which were deemed inappropriate. Perhaps the Deputy was misspeaking because I am sure he did not intend to criticise the project. It is important to put that on record, however, as the Garda youth diversion project is an excellent project. The evidence I have seen suggests that it is effective and that it does encourage young people away from criminal offences and, potentially, a life of crime. I have seen the benefit of it at first hand. We have an excellent youth diversion project in Togher. It won a prize in the youth category of the Tidy Towns competition a year or two ago. There is excellent work being done there. There are serious issues with the cases that were not referred to the project. The Minister of State will be very aware of those very worrying cases. I am sure we will have an opportunity to debate that in the future. Indeed, there has been some speculation in respect of adult cases which were not properly progressed. That is a matter to which we will return. It is a very worrying area but it is not necessarily germane to this specific debate.

Perhaps one of the main reasons we are addressing this particular issue now is the criticism of the Department of Justice and Equality and of the Government by Mr. Justice Hunt in the Minister for Justice & Equality v.Teelin in 2015. Within that judgment, there was an affidavit from James Dixon of the Bournemouth probation office who stated:

there would be clear advantages to Mr Teelin serving the remainder of his custodial sentence in Ireland. He is a young man with a history of mental health problems and therefore I think that regular contact with his family would greatly assist in keeping him stable and focused. It would also give him more opportunity to make plans and prepare for release to his home area.

Although this was a specific case in the High Court, I am sure similar situations were and are not uncommon insofar as inadequate supports existing for someone who is released from a prison setting and who is on probation thereafter. In his judgment Mr. Justice Tony Hunt was of a similar opinion to the probation officer and scathing of this jurisdiction for delaying the framework decision, using quite strong language to outline this frustrations. The judgment reads:

it is a lamentable state of affairs that an absence of resources dictated that no arrangement, whether formal or informal, could be devised so as to accommodate both the respondent’s desire and that of the United Kingdom Probation Service that he should be supervised in his own country of residence, rather than for an extended period in a country with which he has no real connection. It is impossible to see what meaningful benefit or rehabilitation could accrue to the respondent from a protracted period of residence in a probation hostel in a town and country with which he has no real connection.

It is also a matter of regret that neither of the respective jurisdictions has seen fit to implement the Framework Decision on probation matters within the specified time limit, which might have allowed the respondent to have a formal method of instituting a type of supervision arrangement apparently thought to be desirable by the probation services in both jurisdictions. This State has failed to implement the Framework Decision by the time specified in that respect, and the United Kingdom has apparently exercised a right to opt out of implementation thereof. In addition, this State has declined to make resources available to receive the respondent for probation supervision on a voluntary basis.

The facts of this case illustrate clearly that the respondent is precisely the kind of person who could be benefitted by a transferred probation arrangement. All successful probation arrangements result in the accrual of a dual benefit, to the individual supervised and to society in general, the possibility of which has now been lost in the case of the respondent. Furthermore, the taxpayer in the United Kingdom might have been spared the expense of further dealings with the respondent.

Mr. Justice Hunt noted in his remarks that Britain decided to opt out of the implementation of the framework decision. Had Ireland implemented it and Britain not done so, I am not sure whether Mr. Teelin would have benefitted from it in any event. Plainly the UK is not going to implement this framework decision. In the context of Brexit it probably would not be able to even if it so wished.

7 o’clock

Will the Minister of State clarify what current arrangements exist between Britain and Ireland and between North and South or whether there are forthcoming plans to deal with this issue? Clearly, the most common instance in which we will be dealing with this is where a person may have committed an offence in the North or the South and who wishes to serve their probation in their home community. There potentially is a lot of traffic between Ireland and Britain as well, but the cross-Border element is significant. I would appreciate if the Minister of State would address what exists currently, what might exist in the future and how we might see the benefits that exist from this legislation enjoyed by people in an all-Ireland context.

Probation is a chance for someone who has previously offended to reintegrate and hopefully become a more active citizen going forward. Integration is better improved by being within one's own community with the links and supports that exist there to help rehabilitation. It gives the person access to familial support and the support of others in their lives, to be part of their rehabilitation process and it is a very valuable tool in the justice system.

In order to fulfil this mandate, the Probation Service will need adequate and increased resources to enjoy the full benefits of this legislation. Sinn Féin will be supporting the Bill.

See this speech in context