2026-01-14

I want to raise the issue of a victim's rights when the perpetrator of a crime is leaving prison or other institution. Prior to being a TD I was not aware of the very significant rights that exist under the victim's charter, including the right to know where a person is imprisoned, changes to his or her custody or location, and so on. That applies to those in prison but also to those people who are in the forensic mental health services. Difficult cases are described thus for a reason. A constituent of mine, Ms Fionnuala Bourke, has approached me because of what is a gap in the system. I have raised this matter with the Minister privately and would like to raise it publicly now. Fionnuala was stabbed nine times in a random attack by a stranger while she was on her way home from work. It was a brutal assault and she continues to live with the scars of it. This case was well raised and rehearsed in the media and in public. The perpetrator of that crime was convicted, despite lodging a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. That was disregarded by the jury and the perpetrator was found guilty and sentenced. The judge in the case specifically mentioned the fact that while the jury had disregarded the plea of insanity, it was not the case that the person concerned may not have a mental illness. In the judgment she was very clear in acknowledging that while also acknowledging that the person was guilty and therefore deserved a custodial sentence. Unfortunately, the perpetrator of the crime against Fionnuala had also committed a similar attack two weeks earlier. In that case, there was a successful determination that she was not guilty by reason of insanity. Therefore, she was referred to the Central Mental Hospital and remains there. The grave difficulty is that as far as Ms Bourke is concerned, there was no sentence for the crime that was committed. The person concerned served her time in a health institution, as may be appropriate, but no prison sentence was ever served. She also received other difficulties. For example, she was not the victim of the crime for which the person was detained in the forensic mental health services and as a result, she was entitled to no information about when that person might be released, periods of leave and so on. I know this issue was raised by a number of people, including me, with the Minister's predecessor. That Minister committed to examining whether legislation or changes in practice might be required. At the heart of the issue is a feeling of injustice from the perspective of Ms Bourke. A very serious crime was committed against her. Somebody was found guilty in a courtroom and a significant sentence was issued. However, the person concerned has not served, and will not serve, any custodial sentence. Ms Bourke remains outside the loop of information with regard to the detention. I raise the issue with the Minister and hope he will be able to provide more information.

Before I call the Minister, I caution that, notwithstanding the sensitivities of the case, we should avoid naming people who are not in the House. I call the Minister.

I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue. He is correct to say that he has raised this issue with me privately. It does not come as a surprise to me. He is correct in stating that the issues that have been identified have been raised in the media. At the outset, I commend the Deputy. It is important that we take into account the position of victims in the criminal justice system. Historically, the criminal justice system is very much associated with determining the guilt or otherwise of the person who is accused of the offence and probably insufficient recognition was given to the very significant challenges that victims have to overcome in order to get justice. There is obviously the trauma of the offence itself and the Deputy has outlined that in the context of the person who has raised the issue with him. There is then having to make the complaint to An Garda Síochána. I must say that, in general, when I speak to victims they give me a very positive account of their engagement with An Garda Síochána. There is then the issue that the Garda must investigate a complaint, which necessarily takes time. The Garda puts together a file, which then goes to the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP. That can be a traumatic time for victims as the DPP determines whether there will be a prosecution or not. Of course, if the DPP does decide to prosecute, the really important part of the victim's function is that they have to give evidence in court. That can be a challenging experience. If there is a conviction, that is the stage when we say that the State has delivered justice for the individual concerned. The Deputy is talking about circumstances that arise post conviction. In general, justice is delivered for serious crimes, such as the ones the Deputy has identified, when a person receives a sentence of incarceration. I fully recognise that prison is not the only solution to serious offences, but it is certainly part of the solution for the purposes of punishment and rehabilitation. There is significant legislation in place in Ireland to protect and enhance victims' rights. The Deputy will be aware of the Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act, which does give rights to individuals. He will be aware of the Parole Act, which I was instrumental in getting enacted. It also gives rights to individuals in respect of victims seeking justice when it comes to perpetrators seeking parole. The issue the Deputy has identified relates to issues around when concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences are imposed. In the case he has outlined, perhaps the injustice that his constituent feels may have been resolved if the sentence imposed in her case was a sentence that would commence after the perpetrator was released in respect of the other offence for which she was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity. People are detained in institutions such as the Central Mental Hospital. That hospital is a designated centre under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006. It is, as the Deputy knows, part of the National Forensic Mental Health Service and provides a range of forensic mental health services to its patients. People who are victims of offences perpetrated by individuals who are retained within, say, the Central Mental Hospital can register with the National Forensic Mental Health Service victim liaison officer. I am not disowning responsibility, but that responsibility does not come within my Department but lies elsewhere. The Department of justice has no involvement in that regard. What is required in the future? The circumstances of the Deputy's constituent's case are very harrowing. They are also, I must say, unusual. That may be of cold comfort to her. We must, however, be careful about legislating for the exceptional case. The resolution is the ability that is there at present for a consecutive, as opposed to a concurrent, sentence to be imposed.

I appreciate that matters before the court are often in the control of the Judiciary. There is a clear separation of powers between what happens in this House and what happens and how decisions are made in a court. As Ms Bourke sat across from me at my clinic, and she was there for some time, I could only agree with her. She feels that a crime was committed and that while justice was administered and there was a process for dealing with all of that, the ultimate outcome of the sanction of a custodial sentence was never served. There is probably no way of releasing Ms Bourke from the view that the injustice stands. It is a reasonable thing for any victim to feel. We cannot go back and the court case cannot be changed in any way. However, I think it is worth looking at. The Minister said, and I accept, that it is a unique case. It is a particular set of circumstances. As we go forward and examine the interaction between mental health and custodial sentences, this is a matter on which I would like the Minister to dwell. We must not forget the experience of Ms Fionnuala Bourke because she lives with it every single day. Where there is a concurrent sentence, there is a gap where access to information should be provided to the victim. I believe that in some ways, Ms Bourke has come to terms with that. It is a harrowing prospect that you do not know when somebody might be released and when you might meet that person again. That person may have made threats against you and you might encounter or interact with them again. We have the victims' charter to prevent that situation. In this case, there is no such process. It is an area we could consider, but I understand it is a difficult and tricky situation.

I acknowledge what the Deputy has said and agree with him. What happened to Fionnuala Bourke was that a harrowing and desperately traumatic crime was perpetrated on her. The perpetrator received a sentence and justice was done. My understanding is that she did not commence that sentence because at the time, she was being detained within the Central Mental Hospital. What happened in this instance was that there was a detention but not a detention on the basis of the guilt of the perpetrator because of the crime she committed against Ms Bourke. That could have been resolved through consideration regarding the imposition of a concurrent sentence. I am not sure which of the offences was dealt with first. I will look at the situation within the Department. I do not want to mislead the Deputy or indicate to him, or, more importantly, to Ms Bourke, that there is a simple solution that can be put in place to resolve this issue. I do not think that is the case. Hers was a highly unusual case. However, as a victim, she is certainly entitled to be given information in respect of when her perpetrator is to be out in public again. That is something to which she is entitled. I hope there are mechanisms in place to ensure that can be achieved. In many instances, it is very traumatic for individuals to find that the person responsible for the serious offence against them is back out in the community. I know one of the tools that the Prison Service, I and the courts have available is to provide exclusion zones or to grant release on certain grounds and conditions. Those conditions, certainly in respect of very serious offences, can result in people being prevented from going into certain areas. That is obviously an issue of some complexity and that measure has to be exercised sensitively but it recognises our deep concern about ensuring that victims are protected from the ongoing damage caused to them by such offences.