The report on pre-trial detention published this week by the Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) is a valuable contribution to a debate that has been circling the same set of interlocking problems for some time. Prisons are running well beyond capacity while around one in five of those in custody is on remand, a significantly higher proportion of the total than 10 years ago.
The new report makes a strong case that bail is too often granted on terms that the poor cannot meet and that an address requirement with no clear legal basis keeps homeless people in prison. Its 32 recommendations range from an adult bail support scheme to a statutory footing for therapeutic bail, a practice that appears to have lapsed after a legal challenge last year.
The IPRT’s intervention follows the report by Lorcan Staines SC published last November. That arose from concerns about offending by people on bail, acknowledged in Minister for Justice Jim O’Callaghan’s apology to the family of Shane O’Farrell, killed in 2011 by a driver who had been convicted of 30 offences committed while on bail. While Staines was asked whether bail is granted too easily, the IPRT asks whether custody is imposed too often.
Nevertheless, there are areas of agreement between the two, including on the fact that the current process is opaque, inconsistent and haphazard. Both conclude that gardaí should not be prosecuting bail applications. Both question whether cash bail should survive at all. Both want a supervised bail scheme for adults, one to manage risk, the other to prevent poverty becoming the determinant of liberty. Staines further found that the law already goes as far as the Constitution permits, which closes off the politically tempting route of legislating for tougher bail conditions.
RM Block
Where two reports coming from such radically different perspectives independently reach some similar conclusions, the case for action is strong. O’Callaghan has had the Staines recommendations since November. The onus is now on him to move on a system that nobody involved argues is currently fit for purpose.
