Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE MINISTER FOR Justice Alan Shatter has said the temporary release of prisoners helps in their “gradual reintegration” into society.
Shatter said temporary releases assist in gradually preparing suitable offenders for release, administering short sentences, and acting as an incentive to prisoners.
“(Temporary release) is an important vehicle for re-integrating an offender into the community in a planned way,” he said. “The generally accepted view is that the risk to the community is reduced by planned re-integration of offenders compared with their return to the community on the completion of their full sentence.”
Prisoners can be suggested for temporary release in a number of ways, however their selection is not always approved. Shatter said that “the safety of the public is paramount” when such decisions are being considered.
The criteria for the temporary release of prisoners is similar to those considered for the transfer of inmates to open prisons, Shatter said, and a number of factors are taken into consideration when considering a prisoner for temporarily release or transfer to an open prison:
Prisoners are usually be recommended for release by a prison governor or by therapeutic services officials. However, the prisoner, their family, or their legal representative can also apply for consideration of such a concession, and the prison parole board can also submit recommendations in relation to inmates serving long-term sentences.
Shatter said the steps for temporary release, as outlined in the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act 2003, mean that all releases are subject to conditions – which, in the vast majority of cases, include a requirement to report to the offender’s garda station on a daily basis.
“Of course, any offender who breaches his or her conditions may be arrested and returned to prison immediately by the gardaí,” he added.
In relation to transfer to open prisons, a source at the Irish Prison Service confirmed to TheJournal.ie that inmates at times refuse an offer to be moved to lower-security facilities. The source stressed that in the “vast majority” of cases, this was due to concerns about family visitations.
Despite problems with overcrowding and a more heavily policed atmosphere, inmates serving sentences in facilities like Dublin’s Mountjoy Prison have declined to transfer to open security prisons such as Cavan’s Loughan House because of the strain it would put on family travelling to see them, the source said.
Shatter’s comments were in response to a Parliamentary Question by Bernard J Durkan TD about the entitlement of early release of prisoners. It came following the recent escape of 26-year-old Martin McDermott from Loughan House, where he was serving a sentence for the manslaughter of a Garda.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Unless there is a public lynching of tom mc McFeeny this will never be balanced and fair.
If Dublin City Council are going to make the necessary repairs why to the homeowners need new mortgages to move? What about the many people living in unfinished estates, tiny apts with growing families, uninsulated homes, poorly built homes etc… Where is their second chance? This is grossly unfair that Priory Hall is singled out for help. Sends the message that suicide works and this may be enough to convince vulnerable people that their family may be better off with them dead. This is certainly true in the case of Priory Hall. In all likelihood the residents will be able to buy somewhere bigger & better much cheaper than what they paid for the apt in Priory. Why does everyone not get this chance?
And that, Shaun The Sheep is *exactly* why the Government (correctly) didn’t want to get involved. It opens up another ‘army deafness’ situation.
Furthermore I can guarantee you that the Priory Hall people will be disappointed as the expectations have been allowed run and run
How did they get the banks to agree to this write off?
I have a much more simple approach. DCC evacuated them, so DCC should have remedied all the problems and then moved them back in. DCC should have then sought reimbursment from McFeely through the courts.
I now envisage a situation where DCC will not get involved if there are problems of this nature with any other developments.
@ Mark: As far as I understand it, McFeeley is seeking to be declared bankrupt in the UK so DCC would have had no chance of getting the money they spent on repairs back – leaving them with a massive €10m+ gap in their finances.
My big concern is the precedent that has been created here, with Government intervention. When, not if, other dodgy places like Priory Hall arise, those people will expect similar treatment by central government. All of this will come at great cost to taxpayers.
Well done Phil, just took a bloke to top himself for you to get the finger out….
Not the govts problem. Issue is one of contract law that the govt have no business getting involved in. This will open flood gates for claims. “Mr Minister, the car I bought is actually a wreck. Will you take it off my hands, wipe out my loan, and force a bank to give me a new loan to buy a bigger, better, newer car?”
fair to whom? Those that bought into this disaster are being given an out, many years too late, I may add. Yet none of the underlying causes of this deathtrap have been addressed. The list of trusted professionals that failed to do their jobs but still signed off on this development and then accepted payment for work not done, is truly shocking. None have been held accountable by law or by their own professional organisations (reveals how respectable theses organisations really are).
@Doc. I agree about holding the “professionals” involved in this mess to account. Regulation is useless without enforcement.
Shaun – the government are not responsible for ensuring cars are safe before purchase. Their agencies ARE responsible for fire safety checks prior to buildings being signed off as safe. Didn’t happen here, therefore it is the governments problem. The majority of taxpayers have no issue with their money being used to help these people.
Not just the professionals. In the end it is up to the local authorities to ensure that building regs are adhered to. By allowing the practice of just signing off on whatever paperwork was presented, without onsite inspection or verification, the local authorities are absolutely culpable here too.
Since the local authorities act under the auspices of the Dept of the Environment, they can’t be considered entirely off the hook either. So, while it is the tax-payer who gets landed with the bill, as always, it is the authorities who are the blame as much as anyone.
Of course most of all it’s the likes of McFeeny who bear the brunt of the blame. He is one of many who worked a system which might have been (maybe was, over champers in the Galway tent) specifically created by the authorities to allow the lowest standards to flourish and for builders to get away with murder.
Yes, there are more Priory Halls, yes, the whole pyrite thing will eventually need to be dealt with too, yes, we will almost certainly, as tax payers, end up footing many more bills like this. The toxic legacy of the decade of insanity that was not just allowed to continue but was stoked and fuelled by, mostly, the Fianna Fail government will last a long, long time. We should all remember that when they land on the doorsteps spouting their ludicrous crap about change come election time.
sale of goods act, makes the Government responsible for ensuring cars are fit for purpose. however citizens were told that normal consumer rights legislation did not apply in this case. None of those involved have taken responsibility, Homebond refused to honour their guarantee, that the structure was sound. It must make people all over Ireland feel safe to know their Homebond isn’t worth a shite.
@Dennis, I wonder exactly which professional organisations were involved? What prestigious company of Architects signed off on this? Which surveyors put their name to this, both those privately employed by the mortgage providers and paid from the public purse by DCC. Who was the fire officer that signed off on this development?
Are they going to refund the mortgage payments made aswell or take that off the new mortgage? Until mcfeehily is jailed there’s no justice and hes very much culpable for that poor chap taking his own life
Jack arse
As your name suggests perhaps you could just sit on it and mind your own business unless you are. Priory Hall victim.
Go back to bed Richie,adults are having a discussion here
More trolling insults Richie? Do you not get bored with yourself?
I see it as a precendent to compensate for the professional incompetence of private individuals, once again the tax payer will pay so th politician to remain popular.
I would rather the taxpayer helped out these families than the banks we have been bailing out over the last few years. I hope this is the new start these people deserve. Best of luck to them .
Hogan! the same Hogan who repeatedly said he was powerless to get involved, because a legal process was underway. So when a poor family lose a much loved husband and father because of his inaction, suddenly he comes up with a deal to hopefully sort it all out. Explain why you can suddenly find that power now Hogan. Why isn’t the legal process standing in your way now? Any real man would have automatically resigned, but you being the arrogant Oaf that you surely are, are trying to use this tragedy so as to portray you as a great hero and saviour of the people. Hogan you are an affront to all decent people!
why are “professional” buy to let investors being bailed out here??? socialising the risk again
I don’t know the level investors are being bailed out or not, it’s a tough call. However it could also be argued that investors were also badly let down by the planning and building inspection regime of the state.
It sounded like they were getting the same deal as owner occupiers. I just believe a higher due diligence is expected of an “investor” , same logic of course should have been used towards the German and British banks “we” bailed out. The state has let most people down in any event.
Why are the architects and dcc not in court? Did they sign the fire cert?
Silver harp
Apparently you know nothing about the law! Investors are no different to homeowners in a Constitutional sense and it would need a referendum to change such an entitlement. As a proposal it would never fly.
I know justice of which the law is only an occasional bedfellow. The law is currently in the process of turning the whole country into toxic sludge.
Reg – many people have been let down, buy only a few are being assisted by the state. Wrong and unfair
@Silverharp Harp – there’s plenty of reasons to have a moan about professional buy-to-let investors in this country. This is not one of them imo. They were burned just like every other person that bought an apartment there.
Have a go at the people that signed off on this site as being liveable before you have a go at the buy-to-letters.
Apparantly you know everything about everything ,pull your pants up and stop masturbating,leave your bedsit and join in the real world troll
I still don’t want to be on the side of having to pay for other peoples mistakes. There is so much moral hazard in this country that Im having to educate my kids to get the hell out of here when they grow up. And nothing is changing. The current system is crap, if you buy a car for 10K you will spend 200€ to get an independent report done. If you buy a property for half a million you trust some drone in Dublin Co Council (me arse). For any market to work you need a nervous buyer and a nervous seller, the current system puts everyone to sleep and encourages the dodgy developments like Priory Hall, its got to change
Hogan specifically said on the radio that buy to let people where NOT getting this deal. They will retain ownership of their property, which will be repaired by the council, but that’s it for them.
I just listen to local radio station,it said it will cost 20m to clear up this mess, not a thing about a man’s life, this shows this whole country is just about money money money money, and then Hogan thinks he’s a great man for sorting this mess out, tell that to that man’s family.
Is it just me or does it seem odd that both debt write offs and property refurbishment is the approach here? Should the government not simply refurbish the properties and allow these people to move back in to their property that they bought? Im sure if that was the proposal on day one of this issue 2 years ago it would have been acceptable. Something does not sit well with me about this………..I have no problem with the tax payer helping these people over the last 2 year with regards their alternative accommodation expenses and I have no issue with the tax payer making their houses safe. I find both of these to be the right thing to do. But is it right for their mortgages to be written off and that they can now buy again in a very different market while a lot of other people are in bad situations regarding mortgage debt and negative equity?…………hmmmmmmmmmmm……is this not a dodgy precedent?
People please listen to mr Richie Rogers he’s a behavioural scientist and is also infallible in all matters ,the only opinion that’s counts is his and FGs.
If u disagree please note u will be insulted with snide remarks and forced to listen to he’s brand of gombeenism
So after 2 years sitting on his hands Hogan finally is moved into action by the death of someone. What a disgrace he is.
Phil Hogan says it is balanced and fair.
I ask myself how much trust can I put in anything he says, and I answer myself by saying, not a lot.
When he and his colleagues in this wretched excuse for a government actually do something positive about the problem rather than engage in this constant tiresome bullshitting exercise, I might change my mind.
Change the record Garry FFS.
He has a point birdbrain
To Laurence The Bird, if you don’t like the tune fcuk off back under your rock and sing to yourself. ffs.
To see the words ‘Hogan’ alongside ‘balanced, equitable and fair’ makes me vom a little
They should have to move back in, there getting away with buying an apartment at a bad time
Being allowed to gave the debt wrote off is not fair to every other person who has lost a job and then a house.why should they be allowed to get a new loan for a new house if DCC will make all the repairs?tax payers twice in one go.yes they deserve help but this is a bit much,just because they want to move on isn’t a reason to wipe debt.i would love to have all my debts wrote off and buy a nice house like most of Ireland.the complex should be repaired and it’s residents returned to their “new” safe homes
So what is your solution? This is a unique case, the residents were forced from there homes and CANT move back in because it’s unsafe! It’s time for everyone to stop with these idealistic views, let’s get real. The priory hall residents have been in the wilderness for 2 years and under severe stress through no fault of their own. That’s 2 years of hell for them and their families through no fault of their own. Something had to be done for them.
have your say