Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

I broadly welcome the Bill, but I have some reservations. It is positive in that it ties in with the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995. It is right to offer people the chance to serve the balance of their sentence closer to home. I recognise there is a difference here as the Bill deals with people who flee a jurisdiction. I remember — this was mentioned when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was here — that when the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform visited Mountjoy Prison we spoke to one of the women prisoners who was from another country, and her dilemma in considering whether to apply to serve her sentence at home was that she perceived the prison system to be much better here. It gives rise to the question of whether a person imprisoned in a state should have the option of going back to the country from which they fled if the prisons are less attractive there. There are human issues we should keep in mind, while acknowledging that the individuals have fled to the country concerned.

On Committee Stage I intend tabling an amendment which would provide for the Minister to make a report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on the operation of this legislation. There is such a provision in section 16 of the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act and perhaps we should consider including it in this Bill.

Perhaps the Minister could clarify some of the issues I raise when he responds to the debate. One of those relates to the definition for correspondence of offences. What does that mean? It is defined in the legislation, but that is as far as it is defined, and there are different nuances in the way offences are defined in different states. I have raised that issue before. For example, being a member of an organised criminal outfit was included in a schedule in a Bill the Minister recently brought into the House, and we do not have that offence here yet. What exactly is meant by a correspondence of offences, and is the definition too broad?

I am also concerned about the fact that sentencing might be different. I realise there is a subsection that deals with this. We can deal with that issue here, but we cannot protect a person who goes to another country to serve a sentence we have imposed if that country changes the sentence to correspond with its regime. The question is whether that would breach the human rights of the person given that they have been sentenced here and have been subject to our legal process.

Section 6(3) allows for ministerial discretion if there is less than six months to be served, something which is also mentioned elsewhere. Can the Minister clarify what exactly is meant by exceptional circumstances and what type of case he has in mind? In the definition of matters on which the court may make orders, the Minister does not include cases where his or her consent is required where there is less than six months to be served. It is in the Bill but it is not dealt with in terms of when the court is making an order under it. That is something the Minister might need to correct as the Bill goes through the House. On provisional arrest warrants, is there a precedent in any other legislation?

Under section 8(7) the court must be satisfied that a request has been made on behalf of the sentencing country, yet in subsection (7) it is presumed to be the case unless the contrary is proved. Should evidence not be required to be given in the first place, and should it not be required from the outset that a request must have been made by the sentencing country? There is provision for the Minister to reduce a sentence to bring it more into line with the country's sentencing policy in the context of a person serving the balance of their sentence here. However, will we be examining how remission periods compare between countries?

More generally, there are constitutional and human rights issues that we need to take on board. The Bill allows us to recognise that a sentencing regime may be less favourable in another country, but it does not allow us to examine through our courts less favourable legal procedures in another country. If there is a miscarriage of justice, it is left to the person to go back to the sentencing country or to serve the rest of their sentence here. That is not satisfactory. It is totally at the discretion of the Minister or the Government to decide whether the legal system in another country is fair. Surely the court should have a role in that regard. If there is a role, perhaps the Minister would clarify that.