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.

Sentiment score: -0.05

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.

Sentiment score: -0.05