Prisons report - Inspector must not be gagged

THE inhibitions maintained against the proper inspection of prisons, as outlined by former High Court Judge Dermot Kinlen, constitute a serious indictment of the Department of Justice.

Mr Justice Kinlen is the Inspector of Prisons and his criticism of the department is, vicariously, a reflection on Justice Minister Michael McDowell for allowing the situation to continue.

As Inspector of Prisons, he has accused the department, and not for the first time, of trying to cover up unacceptable conditions in Irish jails, and demanding more openness, transparency, accountability and efficiency.

It is more than likely that he will be only able to voice these criticisms in future reports for the very simple reason that he is powerless to act by virtue of the fact that the position of Inspector of Prisons is not a statutory position.

In other words, it does not have the authority of any legislation to give the inspector the powers to carry out his job to any effective degree. Were it so based, he would report to the Oireachtas and not the Minister for Justice, which has proved to be a futile and pointless exercise.

It is imperative that the Government change the status of the Inspector of Prisons because it deals with an area that is a crucial factor in our criminal justice system.

Based on what Mr Justice Kinlen said, eliminating the Department of Justice as the reporting body and replacing it with the Oireachtas is essential.

He has accused the department of being obsessed with power, control and secrecy and, quite obviously, he is perfectly placed to make these damning observations.

It is utterly unacceptable that sections of previous annual reports had been edited by the Department of Justice, and new rules make it more difficult to make spot checks out of ordinary working hours.

The latter is akin to health inspectors alerting nursing homes they were about to make a visit, while the former is a blatant sweeping of problems under the carpet.

It is a ludicrous proposition for the department to attempt to defend its culture of secrecy by the anaemic ruse of pleading, astonishingly, that the minister does not want to be sued.

Should that ever happen, Mr McDowell does not have to be reminded that he can rely on the deep pockets of the taxpayer, through the offices of the Finance Minister, as colleagues before him have done.

Mr Justice Kinlen is also critical of officials in the Prison Service although he is adamant that, apart from the occasional rotten apple, the vast bulk of prison officers are first class and many of them had adopted a sense of vocation in their work.

The former judge’s problem is with the Department of Justice, which is determined to prevent him from exposing the unacceptable conditions in our prisons.

The inspector has forthright opinions on many aspects of our prison system, which he once described as a “finishing school in criminality” for many young people.

His views on the sex offenders programme is that it is a failure as there is no incentive for inmates to take part.

As he considers his fourth report, which will probably again be subjected to departmental censor, the inspector is determined to prevent his functions being controlled.

It is in the interests of our criminal justice system that his voice be heard, on a statutory basis.