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.

Sentiment score: -0.30

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.

Sentiment score: 0.01