THE PAROLE BOARD'S decisions concerning the release of prisoners sometimes attracts media comment "which can be unhelpful", according to the Minister for Justice. Nevertheless, the board must maintain a balance between humanity, justice and the public interest in making recommendations to him on releasing prisoners who have served long sentences.
Dermot Ahern was speaking at the presentation of the Parole Board's annual report for 2007 in Dublin yesterday.
Asked about his reaction to media treatment of high-profile prisoners on their release, he said: "The media have a job to do. We are looking at the whole issue of defamation and privacy. We now have a Press Council. If any member of the public or family of those concerned want to complain [to it], they should."
Responding to remarks made by the chairman of the board, Gordon Holmes, in his foreword concerning prisoners suffering from mental illness, Mr Ahern said he was bringing forward amendments to the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 which would support the most appropriate treatment and care for this group of individuals.
He said that the chairman's remarks had raised the question of whether, in some such cases, "the individuals concerned should ever be coming in contact with the criminal justice system".
Mr Holmes said in his foreword that close collaboration was required between the forensic and generic mental health services in order to deal with the problems of those suffering mental illness after their release.
He said that the situation was more difficult when the ex-prisoners suffered from an intellectual disability. This was because of "the complete absence of any structured service for this population".
He said the legal system did not require that people released on remission be supervised by the Probation Service, apart from registered sex offenders. "This is surely wrong," he said.
He also referred in his foreword to a case, thought to be that of Wayne O'Donoghue, which had not come before the board, as it did not concern a prisoner serving a long sentence, and where "the media reaction to his release was a grave cause of concern".
"If persons who have served their sentence and are released back to the public are then going to be hounded by the press, it is going to make the rehabilitation all the more difficult," he said.
The board made recommendations relating to 73 prisoners in 2007, according to the report, and its recommendations were accepted by the Minister in 90 per cent of cases.
Mr Holmes said that the recommendations were based on the public risk of the release of the prisoner on the one hand and the public disapproval of the prisoner's criminal offence on the other. In making a decision, the attitude of the prisoner himself to his crime was crucial, he said.
In relation to the early release of prisoners serving long sentences (in excess of eight years) he noted that in other jurisdictions, notably the UK, the judge could impose a minimum tariff which had to be served, which the Irish system did not. However, this did not allow for a distinction to be made between those who did their best to rehabilitate and those who did not, he said, which was the basis of the Irish system.
In 2007, 74 cases were referred to the board for review, and 40 prisoners participated in the review process, of which 21 had been convicted of murder or manslaughter. Seven were convicted of sex offences and the remainder for other offences against the person and for drug and larceny offences. Sixteen were serving life sentences and 15 sentences of between eight and 10 years. At the end of the year 108 cases were on hand.