Transcript Reforming the Early Release System in Ireland

Reforming the Early Release
System in Ireland
Irish Penal Reform Trust
Contextual Background
• IPRT Submission to the Thornton Hall Review Group
2011
• Recommendations of Thornton Hall Review Group
included:
- Incentivised scheme for earned TR
- Use of Alternatives to custody
- Strategic Review Group on Penal Policy
Three Mechanisms for Early Release in Ireland
1. Remission-Prison Rules 2007, S59 (1)
2. Temporary Release/Parole, Criminal Justice Act
1960 as amended by the Criminal Justice
(Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act 2003
3. Power to Commute or Remit Sentence, Article
13.6 of the Constitution
Release in Other Jurisdictions: England & Wales
• Determinate sentences released at the half-way
point automatically
• Indeterminate Sentences-Parole Board reviews
• Right to legal representation and oral hearings
can occur
Release in Other Jurisdictions: Scotland
• Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings Act 1993
• Short-term prisoners (less than four years)
released automatically at the half way point
• Long term prisoners (over four years) released at
two-thirds of sentence
Release in Other Jurisdictions: France
• First-time offenders may apply for conditional
release at the half-way point
• Recidivists must have served at least two-thirds of
their sentence
• Decisions regarding early release are made by
tribunals of judges
Parole, ECHR and European Human Rights Norms
• State Obligations under the ECHR
• European Prison Rules 2006
(1) System of prison leave should be an integral part of
the general prison regime (Art 103)
(2) TR should form part of a structured gradual release
process for long-term prisoners (Art. 107)
1. Transparency and Predictability
• Recommendation on Prison Leave (1982) that the
prisoner should be informed to the “greatest
extent possible on refusal of TR” and have the
right to appeal.
2. Independence of Decision-Making
• Recommendations on Conditional Release (Parole)
(2003) all decision-making processes should be fair
and open procedures (Article 32)
3. Speediness of Parole Hearings
• Article 5(4) ECHR:
• “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest
or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings
by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be
decided speedily by a court and his release
ordered if his detention is not lawful.”
3. Speediness of Parole Hearings (contd.)
• Right to Compensation regardless of the parole
outcome - Falkner v Parole Board [2010],
Sturnham v Parole Board [2011]
4. Revocation of Release
• Article 5 (4) of the ECHR
• European Rules on Community Sanctions and
Measures 1992 and Recommendation on
Conditional Release (2003): opportunity to make
representation to a competent body where all
relevant circumstances should be taken into
account.
5. Legal Representation
• Occurs in New Zealand and England & Wales
• Thynne V United Kingdom (1991)
IPRT Proposals for Reform
 Single Early Release Act - Remission, Temporary
Release and Parole Act
 Underpinning the system should be the following core
values:
 (1) Fair procedures and independent decision-making
IPRT Proposals for Reform (contd.)
(2) Clear and transparent criteria for release
(3) Detailed reasons should be disclosed
(4) Remedies should be available to challenge
refusals of leave
Reform of Remission
1. Sentences of under 5 years:
– Standard Remission at the half-way point
2. Sentences of over 5 years:
– Standard Remission at the two-thirds point
– Enhanced remission whereby prisoners who
engage with services can earn up to 50%
Use of Temporary Release
• Release on compassionate grounds
• Day release
• Christmas release or other equivalent religious
events
• Release for purposes of employment or training
in preparation for full release
• Weekend or day release in preparation for full
release
‘Earned’ Early Release
• System of earned early release should be provided for
in the legislation
• Qualifying criteria and systems of measuring eligibility
for earned early release should be set out in the Act.
• Funding into ISM to ensure it is fully operational
Parole Reform: Independence
• Parole Board put on a statutory footing to
remove political influence from the decisionmaking process
Speediness of Parole Hearings
• Automatically scheduled by law for parole review
within six months of their eligibility date.
• If a prisoner does not secure release, follow-up
reviews should be scheduled every year for
prisoners serving under ten years, and every two
years for those serving over ten years.
Right to Legal Representation
• Right to legal representation
• Particularly important for life-sentenced prisoners
who have no release date to look forward to.
Focus on Risk
• The focus should be on risk to society; the Parole
Board should not engage in a ‘re-sentencing’
process
• Importance of professional expertise on the
Parole Board, including psychologists and
psychiatrists.
Expanding the remit of the Parole Board
• The remit of the Parole Board should be
expanded to those serving sentences of five years
or more.
• Increase resources of the Parole Board
Revocation
• Terms should be reasonable and proportionate
• A violation of conditions in the absence of
committing a criminal offence should not mean a
prisoner is automatically returned to prison
Power to Pardon Collectively
• consider making use of the right of pardon to
commute or remit punishment in order to bring
the prison population within safe custody limits.