Category: Justice

Posted on

Courts Bill 2013: Second Stage

Wednesday, 27th March 2013

I welcome the Minister to the House and I thank him for continuing his practice of introducing Bills in this House.

The Bill has a twofold purpose. The first is to amend the rules relating to certain proceedings heard otherwise than in public and the second is to increase the monetary amounts the District Court and Circuit Court can award. I will limit my intervention to the first purpose, which is the proposed amendment to the in camera rule in family law and child care cases.

I broadly welcome the efforts in the Bill to strike the appropriate balance between the public interest and the privacy of adults and children involved in family law and child care cases. Most people are familiar with the variant of Lord Hewart’s famous aphorism from 1924: “…it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” The principle of open justice is a foundational common law principle, an important human rights obligation and an enumerated provision in the Constitution. The relevant article, Article 34.1, provides for exceptions to the administration of justice in public in “special and limited cases”. Such cases include those involving the most vulnerable in our society and children are one such group. Children and families involved in family law and child care proceedings present with myriad vulnerabilities and in fragile situations. There is, therefore, a real danger of adverse effects for the parties involved in the immediate and long term. In light of the highly personal and sensitive nature of family law and child care cases, privacy and the anonymity of the parties should be protected from public consumption through media reporting.

However, a balance must be drawn, which this Bill purports to refine, and I agree that where anonymity is guaranteed and respected, the facts of family law and child care cases and the decisions of the courts should be published. This balance, if fully legislated, guided, explained and implemented, can account for the vulnerabilities of the children and families involved while ensuring key issues are brought to the attention of the public and debated through public discourse. Failing to inform the public and adopting the cloak of secrecy, to the extreme, has had disastrous consequences for Irish society in the past. A clear example of this can be seen with the injustices perpetrated against the women detained in the Magdalen laundries. That issue remained completely out of the public realm while the injustices were occurring. It is important that the public interest and the need to foster and encourage a greater understanding and trust in the family law and child care system is embraced and implemented. The presence of the press will also, hopefully, ensure the recording of precedent and the reasoning behind decisions in proceedings where there is no written judgment will take place.

I have a few questions about the practical application of the amendment to section 40 of the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, as contained in section 5 of the legislation. The scope of the circumstances in which the court may exclude or restrict the attendance of press representatives and prohibit or restrict publication of certain evidence is broad. Ultimately, this will be a decision for the judge to make weighing the public interest considerations against the considerations enumerated in the Bill, which include the best interest of the child; that the evidence is sensitive personal information; that the evidence might be prejudicial to a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings; that the information and evidence is likely to lead members of the public to identify a party or child; or where press attendance might inhibit or cause undue distress to a party or child. Will the court’s adjudication over this complex balance be guided by court rules, practice directions or clear procedural guidelines? Who will be charged with making applications that the press should not attend? Will this be the role of the guardian ad litem, family member, HSE or the judge? Will there be an avenue of appeal to the decision to allow or restrict the presence of the press? How will the manner by which courts arrive at decisions in this regard be monitored?

My concern is that once information is disseminated, it cannot be taken back. This is particularly concerning, given the adverse effect or impact for the party concerned may far outweigh a possible monetary remedy, press apology or criminal conviction of those responsible for the publication of the material in question. Whether it is a child care case, family law case or a case before the Children Court, I strongly recommend that any guidelines or rules relating to the media reporting of any case to which a child is party be proofed against the Council of Europe Guidelines on Child-Friendly Justice 2010. These were drafted by Professor Ursula Kilkelly of University College Cork in consultation with children across Europe. While not binding on member states, the guidelines are standards of best practice. Their strength and relevance further lies in the fact that they have been substantiated by children’s own experiences of the justice system.

I have no doubts about the intention of this amendment but I have doubts, in the absence of rules or implementation guidelines, about its practical application on the ground. We need only to consider the Children Act 2001, which reads as an informed, welfare centred and progressive legislation. However, the weakness of the Act lies in the distinct lack of any procedural guidelines being produced to date for its implementation. Guidelines are desperately needed for the implementation of the Children Act and for this Bill if their full intention and spirit are to be realised. The children’s rights referendum very much underpinned that the best interest of the child needs to be realised in practice. I have spoken to legal practitioners working in the Children Court who are deeply concerned by what have been described as routine breaches of the Children Act in Dublin and regional sittings of the Children Court.

Examples of these breaches include the calling of the name of the child by the court appointed registrar into the public waiting room, the former practice of District Courts of including the name of young person with “YP” in brackets beside the name on the court list or the presence of Garda and legal representatives unrelated to the specific case in the court room which is mandated to sit in camera. These malpractices cannot be tolerated and need to be remedied. Some of the remedies are straightforward. For example, why not ascribe a number to children for their cases which is communicated to them upon their presentation at court and the calling out of the case number only as opposed to the child’s name by the registrar for everyone to hear? We need to ensure the strict application of the in camera rule by liaising with judges presiding in the Children Court to make sure only gardaí and legal representatives directly involved with the relevant proceedings before the court are present in the court room. It is also clear that a child-friendly environment described by international standards of best practice and the European Court of Human Rights, ECHR, in cases such as T v. UK and V v. UK are not being implemented. Privacy is central to the creation of this environment.

In the cases I mentioned, the ECHR expressly recognised the adverse impact of overt media presence on the ability of the children in question to effectively participate in the proceedings before that court. As a result, my earlier concern arises as to who acts as the guardian of the child’s privacy and whether those charged with that task fully understand the importance of the child’s privacy and the full extent of the child’s vulnerabilities and backgrounds. This raises the greater concern and question as to what training and specialisation the people who are currently representing and adjudicating on children have, especially in light of the state legal aid payments that legal representatives appearing in the Children Court receive. Specialist training needs to be considered. In the UK, specialist panels have been set up where those involved must undertake specialist training. Will the Minister give serious consideration to a similar requirement here in order that if somebody is receiving legal aid payments in respect of a case in the Children Court, he or she must have attended specialist training?

I welcome the Minister’s proposals to introduce amendments to the Coroners Act 1962 and the Civil Legal Aid Act 1995 and I look forward to dealing with them on Committee Stage. Senator Walsh referred to mediation and I look forward to the mediation Bill the Minister intends to introduce. It will be important to avoid cases going to court. This would be best, especially when children are involved. I look forward to developing alternatives such as family group conferences, which was proposed in the Fifth Report of the Special Rapporteur on Child Protection. There are other ways. While I raised a number of concerns, I welcome the spotlight being put on the Children Court.

Posted on

Statements on the Magdalen Laundries report

Wednesday, 27th February 2013

I also welcome the publication of the report. I begin by asking that the Department of Justice and Equality ensures that copies of the report are provided to those survivors who do not have Internet access, including some who provided testimony to the committee and who have yet to receive a copy. I wish to pay tribute to the Minister of State’s own personal conviction and courage on these issues.

This report established, categorically, what survivors and their advocacy groups have told us for years, namely, that the State was directly involved and consequently, complicit, in the Magdalen laundry system. I very much welcome the State’s inclusion of all surviving women in the apology, thereby avoiding any distinction being made between survivors who were sent into the laundry system by their families and those incarcerated there at the behest of the State. This is a very important non-distinction which embraces the fact that the laundry system itself was inherently abusive, rather than the abuse stemming from the women’s and girl’s mode of entry. In this regard, however, I must express my disappointment that the report found little evidence of physical abuse, which seems contrary to the evidence handed to the committee by the Justice for Magdalene’s group, comprising 12 files of supporting evidence, including 795 pages of harrowing survivor’s testimonies from girls who were assaulted by nuns, often with keys, belts and other implements, as well as from independent witnesses who attested to the truth of these stories. In the Ryan report, volume 3, chapter 18, and in various documentaries and survivor testimony, it has been widely accepted that these institutions were inherently abusive. If gruelling and relentless unpaid labour behind locked doors is not physical abuse, I do not know what is. The report, in my opinion, should have been dedicated to the survivors of the Magdalen laundry system and all those who did not survive its brutal regime.

Whatever side of the political divide one is on, as Senator Power very clearly articulated earlier, the capacity of Deputy Enda Kenny, as Opposition leader, for example, in response to the Ryan report, and as Taoiseach in response to the Cloyne report, to speak with compassion and sincerity on subjects of the greatest sensitivity is beyond reproach. This was further exemplified when he made his considered official statement and apology on behalf of the Irish State on the evening of 19 February for what is, undoubtedly, our national shame. There has been much discussion following the Taoiseach’s formal apology about whether it was good enough, sincere enough or moving enough. I can only speak personally when I say that I was profoundly moved by the Taoiseach’s words. However, the apology was not for me. It was given on my behalf, but it was for the survivors and their families. The litmus test is them and I am heartened by reports from survivor advocacy groups and the survivor’s reactions to the news teams, directly after the Dáil address, that the Taoiseach’s sincere and heartfelt words were deeply meaningful to the survivors, who feared that day would never come.

We need to learn from our past, and several times in the Seanad I have quoted the Amnesty International report, In Plain Sight, which responded to the Ferns, Ryan, Murphy and Cloynes reports. In the report, which is still very relevant, Colm O’Gorman, a former Senator and executive director of Amnesty International Ireland, stated:

[T]he focus cannot be purely on the past, as if this history has no relevance for our society now. We must consider the degree to which this history reveals vital truths about the nature of our society today. The past only becomes history once we have addressed it, learnt from it and made the changes necessary to ensure that we do not repeat mistakes and wrongdoing.

Since having been appointed a Senator I have found myself questioning how much we have learned as a society and a State, when the culture of secrecy, collusion, cover-up and lack of accountability which surrounded institutional and clerical sexual abuse can still be seen in contemporary contexts, such as with regard to the survivors of symphysiotomy and the treatment of asylum seekers, particularly children, in the State-run direct provision centres which we have debated in the House. This is the Ryan report of the future if we do not deal with it.

Having now established categorically there was State involvement and oversight in the Magdalen laundries system it is also important to establish whether in more recent times the State and its relevant Departments knowingly made efforts to deny this fact or minimise its involvement. I speak, for example, of our testimony before the United Nations Committee against Torture in 2011. There are also outstanding issues involving unnamed graves at the Bohermore cemetery in Galway and unexplained and unregistered deaths in High Park in Glasnevin. On this point, this opportunity should not be allowed to pass without commending the late Mary Raftery on her efforts to bring the issue of the unexplained and unregistered deaths to the fore in her 2003 article in The Irish Times entitled “Restoring dignity to Magdalenes”. In it she raised allegations of the most serious order, including that the then Department of the Environment had issued additional exhumation licences for unidentified and unregistered human remains without a full investigation of the circumstances. That such an investigation did not take place at the time and still has not taken place beggars belief. Where was the accountability then and where is it now?

I have been very disappointed by the radio silence so far of the four congregations at the centre of the McAleese report. Where is the accountability and where is the media and public scrutiny of the wholly inadequate apologies they have issued? I have read their apologies very carefully. One congregation used the word “refuge” to describe the laundries eight times in seven sentences. We have established these institutions were anything but refuges. Other congregations acknowledge that the limitation of care during the time women spent with them was wrong and upsetting. I welcome the calls by the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, and by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, for the religious congregations to contribute to the compensation scheme. I would very much like to see the congregations offer contributions in acknowledgement of their direct role in the abuses suffered by women rather than coming forward on foot of pressure by the State.

The system of redress must be prompt, open, transparent, fair and non-adversarial. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Justice John Quirke to head up the three-month review to recommend criteria for providing support, payments and services to the women. Senator Power asked a number of questions about statutory footing and independent appeals and I will write to the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on these issues. I call on the Minister and the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, to give full and frank consideration to the restorative justice and reparation scheme for Magdalen laundries survivors proposed by the Justice for Magdalenes survivor advocacy group.

It is good that the report has been published and it very clearly proves State involvement, but it does not mean the book is closed. It has opened a new chapter, and what belongs in this new chapter is up to us. We must support the women and the organisations supporting them. We can stand together on this and show we have learned from the mistakes of the past.

Posted on

Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012: Report and Final Stages

Tuesday, 5th February 2013

Part 1

I note that two important amendments I raised on Second Stage and tabled as amendments on Committee Stage have been incorporated into the Bill by the Government. I thank the Minister for that.

It is very important that we now have clarity about the application of the legislation with respect to multiple convictions arising out of one incident or offence. I strongly welcome the extension from 12 months to two years of the maximum applicable sentence for a relevant non-custodial sentence. I hope at a future review of the legislation that this limit will be extended further to allow a greater number of people to avail of the clean-slate second chance the legislation aims to provide.

I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for an excellent Bills Digest and for conducting additional research at my request, which I will be sharing with the House shortly. I also thank the Irish Penal Reform Trust for providing background information on the case studies, which have helped us all and have certainly helped to strengthen my resolve in calling for the most liberal and generous spent convictions legislation possible. For me, this is not about being soft on crime or unduly lenient on offenders. It is about showing foresight and an appreciation of the long-term holistic benefits of encouraging the rehabilitation and re-integration of ex-offenders back into society.

The Minister will be aware, since my initial statement on Second Stage, that I had hoped the Bill would go further. I have tabled a suite of amendments which would see the maximum applicable sentence for a relevant custodial sentence extended from 12 months to two years. I have proposed two years as a compromise between the 12 months in the Bill and the 48 months applied under the UK legislation and now also proposed by my colleagues in Sinn Féin. I have listened carefully to the Government’s rationale for holding fast on the 12 months exclusion point. I want to welcome that it exceeds the six months that was recommended by the Law Reform Commission in 2007. Nevertheless, I maintain that 12 months does not go far enough and I will address some of the points that were raised during Committee Stage in this regard.

First, the Government has pointed out the UK legislation represents the most liberal spent convictions scheme in the common law world and that, in comparison to Australia and New Zealand, what is being proposed in this Bill is liberal. While this is indeed true, it is also true that the UK has had a 40-year head start on Ireland with regard to spent convictions legislation. During this time, the UK Ministry of Justice has strived to strike the appropriate balance between public safety and reducing barriers to re-integration for those who have moved on from offending behaviour. As the Minister knows, the UK Ministry of Justice commissioned a review of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which was called “Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”. This report recommended that the limitation of the spent convictions scheme to 30-month sentences was too restrictive. In response, the UK Government, through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, has reformed the relevant sections of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, setting the limit at 48 months – four years – which is four times the limit proposed in this Bill. On the flip side, I appreciate the schemes in Australia and New Zealand are more restrictive, but I do not see any convincing argument to align ourselves with their position.

We need to look at the purpose of the Bill, which is clearly set out in the memorandum as being “to assist the rehabilitation of offenders, who often experience difficulties securing employment as a result of having a conviction”, and thinking how best we can achieve this aim. The key question is identifying the maximum sentence for which an ex-offender should be able to avail of second-chance legislation. Surely the more people who fall under the remit of the legislation, the greater the positive impact on ex-offenders and society at large.

This leads me to my second point, which concerns the suggestion that the 12-month cut-off point covers almost 90% of all custodial sentences handed down by Irish courts.

In light of this figure, I sought information about the number of people who have been convicted of sentences of up to two years. No data is available on how many people have convictions of not more than 12 but fewer than 24 months. Between that one and two-year figure, I tried to see what we are talking about. The Courts Service records all sentences of imprisonment up to two years together and then breaks them down for the information based on the type of offences, like assault or theft. The data does not distinguish between sentences of up to 12 months and those of up to 24 months. Figures from the Irish Prison Service provide a partial picture of the amount of people with custodial sentences that may come within the scope of the Bill. However, these figures only look at those serving prison sentences. They are limited in their application as by definition, they exclude those who have received suspended sentences and other sanctions such as community service orders, fines and probation orders.

Taking out the sentences that cannot be spent because of their seriousness such as sexual offences and homicide, and bearing in mind that the data is based on the number of committals and not the number of people or sentences so that if people are released and recommitted to prison in a given year, they will be counted each time they are committed, 87.2% of the prison population in 2011 would be eligible to have their convictions spent as they are serving sentences of less than 12 months. A further 4.83% of prisoners could benefit from a spent convictions regime if a sentence of up to two years was eligible to be spent. That would bring the overall percentage of convictions covered by the spent convictions legislation to 92%. I am asking the Minister to move a further 2% in this legislation because he said that this will cover 90% and if we were to go for the two years, it would move it to 92%. It is very interesting that the Courts Service does not record the difference between one and two-year sentences which sends a very strong signal that it considers them to be grouped offences. It strengthens my argument in seeking for it to be extended to two years. Such an extension is in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the Bill and would have a significant and positive impact on the lives, futures and families of ex-offenders given sentences of two years and under.

In respect of the Schedule proposed by me, the overall rationale for this part of my amendment is that the currently proposed rehabilitative periods of four to five years and two to four years, respectively, for relative custodial and non-custodial sentences are much welcomed improvements on the periods proposed in the Bill as initiated. I do not intend to push this amendment to a vote. I feel strongly that in order to achieve the objective of the Bill, as set out in the accompanying explanatory memorandum, the Bill needs to be as generous as possible. I have wondered whether in taking the more conservative approach, the Government has been afraid of accusations of undue leniency and being soft on crime. I can understand the concerns given public concern over crime, the fear of crime and the impact of crime on people’s quality of life. This legislation, which encourages rehabilitation and re-integration of former offenders and must be implemented with a raft of other interventions such as rehabilitation, treatment and re-integration measures, is a tool to make society safer and fairer for us all. A less restrictive spent convictions regime negating as far as possible against the negative, far-reaching and often discriminatory consequences for ex-offenders and their families would also reflect the qualities of compassion and forgiveness in Irish society.

I am aware of research conducted by the Home Office in the UK into reconviction rates. This research suggests that if an individual has not re-offended in the first two years post-conviction, he or she is at equal risk of future offending as someone with a previous conviction. This finding is in keeping with the fact that in UK legislation, the conviction-free or rehabilitative period at the lowest end of the offending scale is two years. The length of time required for rehabilitation must be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence committed but it should not be so long as to constitute an additional and disproportionate punishment. It has been very clear on Second and Committee Stages that all of us in this House welcome and support this legislation. The amendments I am putting forward allow us to go that little bit further and give more people an opportunity to go for that pathway of rehabilitation and having a second chance and a new start in life.

That is why I urge the Minister to consider increasing the limit for an excluded sentence from 12 months to two years. I have examined the figures and am of the view that if the changes I have suggested were accepted, 92% would be covered by the legislation. I ask the Minister to give some in-depth consideration to this matter.

Part 2

All of us who have spoken have acknowledged that this is ground-breaking legislation, the fact that it will impact on so many people and their families and give them a second chance. As I have no doubt that if the Minister was in our position, he would try to push it that little bit further, I ask him to look at our amendments in that light. I have looked at other common law countries and certainly agree with his comparison. It is very difficult in that we cannot compare Ireland to civil law countries, but if we look at our partners in the European Union and having a consistent policy on giving offenders a second chance, this is not the most liberal and we could go a little further to give people a second chance and the opportunity to have a clean slate.

It is welcome that the Minister has said we need to put the legislation in place and monitor and evaluate it to see whether we can go further. I am very happy to share my research and figures in this regard. It is very interesting that the Courts Service does not distinguish between figures in the under two years category. There is something in this, which was partly my reason for choosing the period of two years in my amendment. Will the Minister look again at this issue before he brings the legislation to the Dáil?

I will not press my amendments today because I want to show my utmost and fullest support for the legislation. Equally I have tried to think of the people that are caught outside of the loop. As I said, it ranges from the 90% to 92% and I want to push it a little further in order that we would include up to two years. I support the legislation so I will not press my amendment. I am aware that the legislation must go through the Dáil and I ask the Minister to give it consideration.

Part 3

I thank the Minister for this historic legislation. It was long promised but he has delivered. This legislation on spent convictions has brought us into line with our European partners. I know that the Minister has played a strong role and hand in ensuring that we have a rehabilitation system and restorative justice. The legislation is testimony to that and I support it. During the debates in the House on Second Stage, Committee Stage and today on Report Stage we have shown how we can constructively engage in dialogue. Equally, I pay tribute to the Minister for engaging with us in that dialogue and for trying to tease through the arguments to ensure that we have the best legislation. I greatly appreciate that when he attends that he engages extremely constructively with us and I thank him for that.

Posted on

Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012 – Report Stage

Wednesday, 30th January 2013

Part 1

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. On Second Stage I expressed my full support for the Bill and the amendments I have tabled are to strengthen it further. The Bill brings Ireland in line with the rest of its EU partners and the vast majority of the Council of Europe states. It is a mark of a fair, just and compassionate society to have arrangements in law that allow for individuals to put their offending past behind them and move forward with a clean slate. It is in everybody’s interest to facilitate and encourage the rehabilitation and reintegration of former offenders into society. My only concern, which my amendments are intended to remedy, is that the Bill, even with the Government amendments, which I take it will be supported and all of which I welcome, is still too restrictive and too conservative to fulfil its purpose.

I will begin by noting that I have no difficulty in supporting a further increase in the maximum limit of sentence to which the spent conviction regime will apply. The “30 months” amendment being put forward by my Sinn Féin colleagues has merit. A review in 2011 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 by the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom judged the limit of 30 month sentences to be too restrictive.

In response the UK Government, through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 has reformed the relevant sections of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act by setting the limit at 48 months. This is four times the limit proposed in the Bill.

The UK has a 40 year head start on us with regard to spent convictions legislation. This is not something it has come up with because of five years’ experience. After 40 years it has increased the limited to 48 months. During this time the Ministry of Justice in the UK strived to strike the appropriate balance between public safety and reducing barriers to integration for those who have moved on from offending behaviour. We have an opportunity to capitalise on the learning in the UK with the legislation before us.

I support my colleagues in Sinn Féin, whose amendment proposes to extend the limit to 30 months and this keeps with the minimum extension sought by the Irish Penal Reform Trust. I would have preferred to propose 48 months but I thought I would try to strike a middle ground, which is why the amendment proposes two years as a compromise between the 12 months in the Bill which is extremely restricted and prohibitive and the 48 months which has grown out of trust after 40 years of legislation in the UK. I believe two years strikes a good balance as we start out on this journey of recognising spent convictions.

Part 2

I thank the Minister of State for her response. It is good that we are all broadly in strong support of the Bill, although we are trying to make it that little bit better. It is good to have such a constructive atmosphere for this debate. There was only one comment with which I did not agree – it referred to recidivism rates in Ireland. In 2008, a report by UCD’s Institute of Criminology, which examined reoffending after more than four years, found that Ireland was in the mid to lower rates of recidivism compared to similar countries internationally.

While I still believe we are being too cautious, I will reflect on what was said. Although I will not move the amendments I have tabled under this grouping today, I reserve the right to bring them back on Report Stage.

Part 3

We agree on this issue. The fact the new spent conviction arrangements would not apply to multiple convictions arising from a single offence or incident was raised on Second Stage. Today’s amendments Nos. 22 and 23 seek to address that. I felt there was a danger that combining convictions of this nature could have had the effect of combining two minor sentences into a more serious sentence, thus taking all of the convictions out of the remit of the Bill. I do not believe that is what the Minister intended and my amendment was submitted to avoid that unintentional pitfall.

I am glad to see the Government itself recognises the need for clarity around the single incident, multiple conviction scenario. I am happy to support the Government amendment but, with respect, I would like the Government to look at the wording in my amendment because, in this case, it is particularly good wording. The Minister might say I would say that but I have taken advice today on it, although I am happy to support the Government amendment.

Part 4

I thank the Minister of State for her reply. Obviously, the overall rationale for my amendment is that the original rehabilitative periods put forward in this Bill of five to seven years for relevant custodial sentences and three to five years for relevant non-custodial sentences were too long. The Government’s own amendment, which reduces these periods to four to five years and two to four years, respectively, is very welcome but in my opinion is too conservative. Nevertheless, I welcome these changes and am supportive of them.

I wish to draw the Minister of State’s attention, once again, to the explanatory memorandum that accompanied the publication of the Bill which sets out the main purpose of the Bill as being “to assist the rehabilitation of offenders, who often experience difficulties securing employment as a result of having a conviction”. In order to achieve this objective, the Bill must be as generous as possible. To be generous does not mean being soft on crime in any way, although some members of the Government may believe that a less restrictive and less conservative law might be seen thus. It would show foresight and an appreciation of the long-term societal benefits of encouraging the rehabilitation and the reintegration of ex-offenders into society. A less restrictive spent convictions regime, negating as far as possible against the negative, far-reaching and often discriminatory consequences for ex-offenders and their families would also reflect the qualities, in Irish society, of compassion and forgiveness.

I am very aware of research conducted by the UK Home Office into re-conviction rates which suggests that if an individual has not re-offended in the first two years post-conviction, he or she is at equal risk of future risk of future offending as an individual with no previous conviction. That finding is in keeping with the fact that in the UK legislation, the conviction-free or rehabilitative period at the lowest end of the offending scale is actually two years. Obviously, when I put forward my amendment I was hoping that my original amendments would be accepted, which they were not. I will now reflect on this and return to it on Report Stage, if necessary.

Posted on

Order of Business, 26 June 2012

I, too, welcome the publication of the consultation document on the criminalisation of the purchase of sex which I believe is the result of the motion the Independent group brought before the House on two occasions.

Last Friday, 22 June, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, and the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, signed a statutory order to remove section 11(1)(e)(iii) of the Ombudsman for Children Act which excluded children detained in St Patrick’s Institution from the complaints remit of the Ombudsman for Children, Ms Emily Logan. The order will take effect from 1 July. I warmly welcome this move which I do not believe received much publicity. Prior to this, children held in prison, children in the Defence Forces and children involved in dealings with the Garda were the only three groups of children excluded from the remit of the Ombudsman for Children.

However, there is an ombudsman in place for both the Defence Forces and the Garda. It followed from the announcement of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs on 2 April that the detention of children in St Patrick’s Institution would end on 1 May for all newly remanded or sentenced 16 and 17 year olds. They will now be detained in Oberstown. These two measures mark significant progress in the treatment of juvenile offenders and the observance of children’s human rights. However, I am mindful of the fact that there is still no independent, fair and impartial complaints mechanism for adult prisoners. Concern has been expressed in this regard by both the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the inspector of prisons, Mr. Justice Michael Reilly, in his annual report for 2010.

In Mr. Justice Reilly’s report he refers to a deficiency, to be rectified by 1 July 2011, in the following of proper complaints procedures, with supporting documents. I look forward to seeing what progress, if any, is recorded in his next annual report. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Justice and Equality to the House to confirm when the annual report of the Office of the Inspector of Prisons for 2011 will be published. I understand it was sent to the Minister on 17 April. I ask that we have a debate on how best an independent, transparent and accountable prisoner complaints mechanism can be established in the prisons.

Posted on

Order of Business, 6 June 2012

I agree with Senator Bacik’s proposal for a debate on the future of the Seanad in light of the announcement concerning the constitutional convention.

I also send my best wishes to those sitting the junior and leaving certificate examinations. I would not swap places with them but I wish them the very best, having dropped my nephew to his first exam today.

I warmly welcome the announcement by the EU for funding for the missing children hotline on Missing Children’s Day. This House played a strong role on that matter by having an all-party, all-group motion seeking the hotline to be up and running. This funding has now been announced by the EU but the ISPCC, which has been awarded the hotline and the funding, will need additional funding from the Government. I therefore repeat my call of 22 May, asking the Leader to invite the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, to the House to discuss her Department’s plans to provide the necessary funding and support for Ireland’s missing children’s hotline, so we can have it operational in the coming months.

We should also discuss with the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, how her Department and the Government can support the exceptional work done by the ISPCC through its Childline service. I also ask the Leader to seek from the Minister a date for the publication of the report into child deaths. She should give a commitment to attend the House shortly after it is published so that we can discuss it with her.

I commend the joint policing operation between the Garda Síochána and the PSNI into organised prostitution, brothel keeping and money laundering. On Tuesday last, 29 May, searches were carried out at over 120 houses, apartments and flats on both sides of the Border under Operation Quest, which led to a number of arrests. I particularly welcome the fact that three suspected victims of human trafficking were rescued during the course of these searches. I welcome the Garda Síochána’s recognition of the link between prostitution, organised crime and money laundering, as well as the additional link between prostitution and human trafficking, which this case demonstrates. I commend the gardaí for their approach.

The Minister for Justice and Equality has advised us that he will shortly publish his public consultation document. I am disappointed, however, that the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland has banned a radio advertisement campaign by “Turn off the Red Light”, which seeks to highlight abuses in the Irish sex trade. That is very disappointing.

Posted on

Independent Senators press Government on Prostitution Commitment

“Every day that passes there is a possibility of women and children being forced further into sexual exploitation in Ireland. We have to take action.”

– Senator Jillian van Turnhout

Tomorrow, Wednesday 18th April, the Seanad will debate a motion put forward by the Independent Group of Senators (Taoiseach’s Nominees), on criminalising the purchase of sex in Ireland to curb prostitution and trafficking.

This motion follows on from the Independent Group motion on the same topic which was debated in the Seanad on October 12th 2011. The result of that debate was a Government amendment stipulating that a public consultation process would take place in the following six months. No such consultation process has even begun.

The Independent Senators will call on the Government to uphold their commitment to engage in public consultation in order to decide whether legislation should be enacted along the lines of that already in place in Sweden and Norway to criminalise the purchase of sex.

The Senators will remind the Government that, as more than 1000 women are made available for paid sex on on any given day in the State, any further delay in consulting and drafting legislation means a perpetuation of ‘a modern form of slavery’ and an abuse of basic human rights.

Introducing the original motion, Senator Katherine Zappone said that “Our current laws are not working. Female enslavement in this country is alive and well and it is generating vast profits for those in control. There is an inescapable interweaving of trafficking with prostitution and this exploitation must be addressed. We need legislation that can interrupt this activity, which is an absolute infringement of human rights”.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout (Leader of the Independent Group in the Seanad) turned to the role of children in Ireland’s burgeoning sex trade. She argued that “the impact [of trafficking and sexual exploitation] is almost unimaginable for children.” Having detailed the harrowing experiences of children trafficked into Ireland and exploited for sex work, she pointed to documented cases of “eastern European girls as young as 14 being trafficked to Ireland, brutally and systematically raped over a number of days to ‘break them in’ and then shipped off to various brothels around Ireland. This intolerable situation is my motivation for fully supporting the motion proposed by the Independent Group.”

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail spoke as a middle-class, middle-aged Irishman, making the point that he is one of the demographic which is perhaps most likely to purchase sex in Ireland. “It was not until I read about the Turn Off the Red Light campaign recently that I awoke from my own ignorance with regard to prostitution. Prostitution is not one of those things a liberal country should tolerate. We cannot turn a blind eye to it.”

The Independent Group will call for the ‘considered public debate’ promised by the Government to take place by October 2012, and for a report to be produced for discussion of its findings by December of this year. The outcome will be to decide whether this Government should legislate to criminalise the purchase of sex outright in the State.

Posted on

Senator Jillian van Turnhout warmly welcomes Minister for Children and Youth Affairs’ announcement that capital funding has been secured to end the detention of 16 and 17 year old boys in St. Patrick’s Institution in the next two years

Senator Jillian van Turnhout warmly welcomes Minister for Children and Youth Affairs’ announcement that capital funding has been secured to end the detention of 16 and 17 year old boys in St. Patrick’s Institution in the next two years.

Press Release, 2 April 2012

***FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE***

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Frances Fitzgerald T.D., announced today that capital funding in the region of €50 million over a three year period has been secured to end the detention of children under the adult prison regime in St. Patrick’s Institution in the next two years.

As of 1 May 2012 all newly remanded or sentenced 16 year olds will be detained in the children’s detention facilities in Oberstown and within two years all those under 18 in need of detention will be sent to dedicated child-specific facilities on the Oberstown campus.

In response to today’s announcement Senator van Turnhout said “I have made my concerns about the continued detention of children in the adult prison regime of St. Patrick’s Institution well known both on the Seanad floor and as a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children. The current detention system for children violates a number of Ireland’s international human rights obligations and is one of the State’s most glaring violations of children’s rights. I warmly welcome today’s announcement from Minister Frances Fitzgerald TD to ensure that as of 1 May a new approach to children’s detention will be implemented. This significant progress illustrates the real value and potential of the new Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I believe it demonstrates a positive shift in the Government’s policy for children that has the best interests of the child at its heart. I reiterate my call to the Minister to extend the remit of the Ombudsman for Children to allow complaints from children held in prison and detention on the same basis as children detained elsewhere”.

ENDS

Notes for editors: Senator van Turnhout is the Leader of the Independent Group of Senators (Taoiseach’s Nominees)