Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator for raising the issue. I am taking this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Fitzgerald, who unfortunately cannot be here today for reasons I am sure the Senator will understand.

I wish to outline the reasoning behind alternative sanctions and the value of supervision as opposed to monitoring. I understand perfectly the argument the Senator makes. Section 102 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, which I assume is what the Senator is referring to, provides for the electronic monitoring of the restrictions on an offender's movements imposed by a court under section 101 of the same Act. Section 101 provides that a court, which convicts a person of certain offences and considers a prison sentence of three months or more is appropriate, may make an order restricting the offender's movements as an alternative to a sentence of imprisonment. It is only available to the courts as an alternative sanction for a limited number of offences and does not apply, for example, to burglary. The restrictions on an offender's movements may include a requirement for him or her to be in a certain place or places for a specified period or to stay away from a certain place or places. The order may also include conditions as the court considers necessary to ensure that while the order is in force, the offender will keep the peace, be of good behaviour and will not commence any further offences.

The previous Government commenced section 101 but did not commence section 102. To the best of my knowledge, restriction of movement orders have not been used extensively by the Judiciary. The addition of monitoring a person's compliance with the conditions of the restriction of movement order by electronic means under section 102 is not necessarily the most cost-effective way to challenge and change the offending behaviour of a convicted person.

The Government's focus has been on the use of alternative sanctions to promote the rehabilitation of offenders. In that context the Criminal Justice (Community Service) (Amendment) Act 2011, introduced by the previous Minister, made it a requirement that the courts first consider the appropriateness of community service when considering the imposition of a custodial sentence of 12 months or less and extended the possibility of community service to offences attracting a sentence of more than 12 months. Supervised community service is available for a wide range of offences, including burglary, and offers the possibility of holding an offender to account for his or her behaviour and, through a range of targeted interventions and programmes, bring about positive changes in the offender's life with the aim of avoiding further offending. At a minimum, community service provides for the opportunity to pay back to a community the harm done by offending behaviour. Monitoring a convicted offender's movements, whether by electronic means or otherwise, provides neither a focus on rehabilitation in the same way that supervision does nor the security of a prison sentence in preventing further offences. We all are agreed on that.

Section 108 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 also provided for the use of electronic monitoring for prisoners on temporary release. This provision was commenced by the previous Government. A pilot project indicated that it is only cost-effective in a limited number of circumstances. Electronic monitoring continues to be used in a small number of cases for prisoners on temporary release. Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 provided for the electronic monitoring of certain persons admitted to bail. The previous Government also did not commence this section. I note that concerns have been raised about the workability of this section as drafted.

The Minister's preference for serial offenders, such as those charged with burglary offences who are likely to commit further serious offences, is that they should be refused bail and removed from our communities pending their hearing. It is for that reason the Minister has brought forward the Criminal Justice (Burglary of Dwellings) Bill. The burglary of a person's home is a particularly horrible crime and this Bill is designed to keep repeat burglars off the streets and improve the safety of our communities. It facilitates the refusal of bail and tougher sentencing for those 25% of burglars responsible for 75% of burglaries. No amount of electronic monitoring will be as effective as the provisions in the burglary Bill.

In cases where bail is granted, the Minister recognises that the targeted use of electronic monitoring has potential in reducing reoffending while on bail. With this in mind, the Minister is bringing forward new, workable proposals in the new bail Bill to allow the use of electronic monitoring in cases where the prosecution thinks it may be appropriate.

I hope that is satisfactory. I think it is what the Senator is looking for.