Ireland and UNCAT: Six years on, have things changed?

Sophie van der Valk and Mary Rogan

During the latest session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture, Ireland’s second periodic report on its implementation of the Convention against Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Punishment was under review. Minister for State, David Stanton, led the Irish delegation before the Committee. This session was well attended by various civil society organisations and NGOs working in fields affected by UNCAT, furthermore submissions were made by the IHREC and the IPRT to the Committee ahead of the session which directly addressed prison inspection and the complaint mechanism. While Ireland has signed, and ratified the Convention itself, it remains only a signatory to the Optional Protocol.  The long delay between signature and ratification of the Protocol was raised by the Committee and they requested information on a time line for ratification of the optional protocol and also on the establishment of a National Preventative Mechanism, the key domestic obligation under the protocol. While the Department of Justice and Equality reassured the Committee of Ireland’s commitment to OPCAT making reference to the open consultative process regarding a options for the National Preventative Mechanism, the Concluding Observations of the Committee included a request for follow-up information on the ratification of OPCAT by the 11th August 2018.

Inspection and complaint mechanisms for prisons was one of the areas under consideration. Ireland was commended for their introduction of a formal complaint mechanism since their last report, however concerns were raised given shortcomings reported with the mechanism. There was a need to keep any reform under review to ensure it afforded full protection of rights. The lack of a “completely independent mechanism” remained a concern for the committee, as well as the need for an “independent appeal procedure” outside of the prison system. Movement may already be under way to address these concerns in light of Minister Fitzgerald’s announcement earlier this year, that the mandate of the Ombudsman would be extended to include the receipt of prisoner complaints with the changes aiming to be in operation by 2018. This development was welcomed by Ms Racu of the Committee.

During the review, questions were raised on the work of the Inspector of Prisons. The Committee valued the Inspector’s reports as an important source of information on prisons in Ireland, as indicated by their reliance on his guidance in their issues under consideration, however funding and resources provided were a concern for the Committee. The Department of Justice and Equality stated that the office of the Inspector of Prisons is adequately resourced and recommendations are treated seriously and almost invariably accepted. In the concluding observations, it was noted with concern the delay in the publication of reports, the latest annual report being published in 2014 and only covering seven of 14 places of detention in Ireland. The Committee stated that the State Party should “ensure that existing bodies which currently monitor places of detention as well as civil society organizations are allowed to make repeated and unannounced visits to all places of deprivation of liberty, publish reports and have the State party act on their recommendations.”

A number of questions and statements were directed at the completion and contents of the inspection of places of detention bill, especially the lack of progress in regards to the enacting the bill. Mr. Hani, of the Committee, highlighted the importance of ensuring the Bill encompassed all places of detention.

The review by the Committee was a thorough exercise in public accountability, with Ireland’s record on prisons, as well as a wide range of other topics, under close examination. The review was also an opportunity to see the impact of scrutiny in action, with government officials providing updates on progress and information on planned developments. The work of NGOs as monitors and accountability mechanisms was also most evident.

The PRILA team will be examining the progress in implementing OPCAT in Ireland, changes to the complaints procedures in prison, and the development of the role of the Inspector of Prisons as part of its research on the inspection and oversight of prisons.

The PRILA project is funded by the European Research Council and examines the legal regulation, experiences and impacts of inspection and oversight of prisons.

Sophie Van Der Valk is a PhD candidate at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin, working on prisoners’ experiences of oversight as part of the PRILA project.

Mary Rogan is an Associate Professor at the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin and Principal Investigator on the PRILA project.



The PRILA project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 679362.

Ireland and UNCAT: Six years on, have things changed?

Inspection and monitoring of prisons: what does European public law require?

The first presentation from the PRILA project (Prisons: the rule of law, accountability and rights, @prila_tcd), which is funded by the European Research Council (2015-StG-679362) was made at the ICON-S Conference in Copenhagen on July 6 2017. You can see the programme for the conference here (the PRILA abstract is on page 210).

The paper examined how European public law has dealt with inspection and monitoring of prisons at the domestic level. Its central argument is that the European Court of Human Rights has not given sufficient attention to domestic inspection and monitoring of prisons, resulting in a lack of guidance about the powers they should have. This neglect has also, inadvertently, resulted in inspection and monitoring mechanisms not receiving the endorsement and support they need from the Court. The key points of the paper are summarised here.

The paper begins by examining inspection and monitoring in European human rights law. It notes the European Prison Rules’ requirement that there be inspection of prisons. The purpose of such inspection is to ensure that prisons are run in accordance with domestic and international law and the European Prison Rules themselves. The paper notes, however, that there is more guidance in the 2015 United Nations Mandela Rules concerning the powers which inspectors should have than in the European Prison Rules. The paper further suggests that the introduction of the Optional Protocol to the United Nations’ Convention Against Torture indicates the importance of domestic inspection and monitoring bodies in the prevention of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, and that OPCAT also exceeds the European Prison Rules concerning the level of guidance given to those bodies.

The paper then examines the European Court of Human Rights’ assessment of inspection and monitoring bodies. In examining the cases of  Rodić and others v. Bosnia Herzegovina (application no. 22893/05, May 27 2008), Neshkov and others v. Bulgaria, (application nos 36925/10, 21487/12, 73196/12, 77718/12, 9717/13, January 27 2015) Torreggiani v. Italy (application nos. 43517/09, 46882/09, 55400/09), Varga v. Hungary, (application nos, 14097/12, 43135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13,44055/13 and 64586/13, March 10 2015, and Ananyev v. Russia (application nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08), April 10 2012), the paper argues that the Court has focused on preventive remedies on Article 3 to the exclusion of an assessment of the role of inspection and monitoring mechanism. This is an understandable product of the Court’s emphasis in the caselaw on effective remedies on the ability of a body to bring about an enforceable and binding decision in an individual’s case. This is not how many inspectors operate. The focus of inspection in Ireland and in the United Kingdom (and also the focus of OPCAT) is on engaging state authorities in dialogue and prompting reform through the issuance of recommendations and follow up.

The paper argues that states in Europe need more guidance on the powers which inspectors should have. It suggests that this could be provided through a number of possible solutions:

  1. A lack of an effective inspection and monitoring procedure could be argued as a standalone breach of the Convention, likely Article 3;
  2. Inspection and monitoring bodies could be assessed as factors in decisions on whether Article 3 (or other Articles when applied in the prison setting) has or have been breached;
  3. A soft law instrument on domestic prison inspection and monitoring is needed from the Council of Europe.

Related papers will be presented at the Society of Legal Scholars’ Annual Conference in University College Dublin in September 2017 and at the European Society of Criminology Annual Conference in the same month. A comparative piece with US law will be presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Conference in November 2017. All feedback is very welcome!

Inspection and monitoring of prisons: what does European public law require?

New publication: Human rights and correctional health policy

The latest issue of the International Journal of Prisoner Health has just been published. Prof Brie Williams, Cyrus Ahalt, Prof Craig Haney, Dr. Scott Allen and Prof Josiah Rich are the editors of a special issue on the topic of ‘translating research into policy to advance correctional health’.

I have a piece in this special issue entitled ‘Human Rights and Correctional Health Policy: a View from Europe‘. In the piece, I examine how human rights principles can shape health policy in our prisons and jails for the benefit of the administration of correctional services.

Prisons and jails are eminently rule-bound institutions, and correctional law can be a key source of protection for those in prison, but also for prison staff and those who work in healthcare settings. In the piece, I argue that European human rights principles are distinctive, and that they offer the possibility of improving how healthcare is managed in prisons and jails. For example, the European Court of Human Rights has reiterated the importance for prisoners to be able to access medical care without undue delayA person’s incapacity may mean that release is necessary in order to comply with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Court of Human Rights has also turned its attention to the rehabilitative programmes for those whose prospects of release are linked to their ability to address their level of risk. In Murray v. the Netherlands the Court held that, while there was no right to rehabilitation as such in European prison law, prison authorities must provide prisoners with the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves in circumstances where eligibility for release depends on accessing such programmes.

While the focus on access to rehabilitation may be a distinctive European prison law norm (see van zyl Smit and Snacken), constitutional law principles from the United States can also guide the imposition of improved healthcare. In Brown v. Plata, the famous case arising out of severe overcrowding in California (and brought by the Prison Law Office), the Supreme Court of the United States held that prisoners retain the essence of human dignity inherent in all persons. Recognising this dignity is an idea unrestrained by national boundaries. It is also an idea physicians and human rights professionals try to live out every day.

The special issue also contains work by Jamie Bennett and Richard Shuker on the potential of prison-based democratic therapeutic communities, and by Jae Sevelius and Valerie Jenness on challenges and opportunities for gender-affirming healthcare for women in prison. There is a very timely piece by Cyrus Ahalt, Craig Haney and colleagues on reducing the use and impact of solitary confinement, as well as a research paper on the policy implication of ageing prison populations.

Please contact me for an open access (green) version of the paper, or see here.

New publication: Human rights and correctional health policy

21 years of the Irish Penal Reform Trust: civil society and law reform

The Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT), Ireland’s leading NGO working for progressive reform of the penal system, is celebrating twenty one years in existence.

I was privileged to chair IPRT between 2010 and 2014. Meeting current and former staff and board members at Áras an Uachtaráin, at a reception hosted by IPRT Patron, President Michael D. Higgins, and Sabina Higgins, brought home to me once again the importance of well resourced, professional civil society organisations. The use of evidence and the creation of constructive and concrete proposals for reform have also been hallmarks of the work of IPRT. It was also very evident that NGOs require a wide variety of strategies and tactics, and the support and input of a wide variety of actors. The photograph of those attending the event shows the diversity of interests and talents which have combined to make IPRT the authoritative organisation it has become.

The question of strategy and the role of NGOs was also very evident at the most recent seminar in the ‘Changing Ireland, Changing Law’ project, which I am co-directing with Professor Ivana Bacik of Trinity College Dublin. It is funded by the Irish Research Council, and will produce an edited collection with contributions from former litigants, lawyers, academics and NGOs, in 2016. This project works with the Public Interest Law Alliance as its lead partner. The project examines how litigation has acted to shape social policy in Ireland and models of change adopted by NGOs. It wishes to document and share the experiences of the individual litigants behind the cases which have shaped law reform in Ireland. Our first seminar was with the National Women’s Council of Ireland, and explored women’s rights and social change in Ireland. Our second was with the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, and looked at the transformative effect of cases taken by Senator David Norris, and Senator Katherine Zappone and Dr. Ann Louise Gilligan. Our most recent seminar involved us partnering with the Immigrant Council of Ireland, to hear about the pressing need for reform in the area of immigration and asylum. The Mallak v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform decision was a key point of discussion in this seminar. This case, which has fundamentally altered administrative law in Ireland, held that there is a right to reasons even when a decision is entirely within the discretion of a Minister, when fundamental rights are affected.

The Mallak case has a lot of potential in the area of prison law. The right to reasons has potential application across a wide variety of areas. It is central to a truly accountable prison system.

The Irish Penal Reform Trust has worked hard to reform the penal system in Ireland. Its work on accountability in particular remains urgent and critical to the development of better penal and social policy in Ireland.

21 years of the Irish Penal Reform Trust: civil society and law reform

Accountability in our prisons: Blog for Justicia +

I was delighted to be invited to write a blog for Justicia +, an organisation based in Mexico, on the globally relevant concept of accountability in our prisons. The English version is below, and the original (in Spanish) can be found here.

Accountability and the rule of law take on particular importance in the prison context. International human rights norms emphasise the need for independent monitoring, proper record keeping, and fair procedures in decisions which affect the fundamental rights of prisoners, such as family rights in the case of family visits and transfers, as well as procedural justice during disciplinary hearings. It is well established that fair procedures enhances the legitimacy of prisons, and the role of staff in these processes is essential. As the Association for the Prevention of Torture has said about the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Committee on the Convention against Torture has stated, the ‘basic premise is that the more open and transparent places of detention are, the lesser the risk for abuse’. The rule of law is upheld through clarity in prison regulations, the application of the rules equally, and with fair procedures, recourse to a process of appeals, and respect for rights. These principles are of fundamental importance in places where State power is at its most potent.

Prisons are places of power, which flows in a variety of crucial ways. State power is exercised by means of the imposition of punishment; power flows through relationships between staff and prisoners, out to prisoners’ families, amongst prisoners themselves, between oversight bodies, staff and prisoners, and between various grades of staff. At the same time, prisons are eminently rule-bound institutions, subject to local regulation, national legislation, regional legal instruments and human rights norms, and international obligations. These act as checks on unrestrained power, regulating prison conditions, forms of disciplinary sanction, and contact with the outside world, and are crucial aspects of legitimate penal regimes, as the work of Ben Crewe, Alison Liebling and Sparks and Bottoms has shown.

Two essential elements of the rule of law in prisons are avenues of complaint for prisoners which are independent of the person or body making a decision about a prisoner, and mechanisms for inspection and monitoring on a regular basis. The European Prison Rules emphasise the importance of mechanisms for responding to complaints by prisoners and the possibility of an independent appeals process, while the Committee for the Prevention of Torture has stated that “effective grievance and inspection procedures are fundamental safeguards against ill-treatment in prisons” (2nd General Report). The European Court of Human Rights has also laid down the basic elements which any investigation into the death of a prisoner must comply with. In order to vindicate the procedural element of Article 2, which contains the right to life, an investigation into the death of a person in prison must be instigated by the state, be capable of establishing responsibility for any wrongdoing, involve the family of the deceased prisoner, be independent, and prompt. The Court has also emphasised the importance of effective investigations when allegations that a person has been the subject of torture (see, for example, Makhashevy v Russia). These are principles which transcend national borders.

Clarity and certainty in the law are also essential requirements of a system which is governed by the rule of law. The kinds of behaviour which might result in a disciplinary sanction must be clear to prisoners, and the circumstances in which a prisoner might be refused a visit with a family member or friend must also be readily understandable and have a basis in a law which is accessible to prisoners. In Moiseyev v Russia the European Court of Human Rights held that in matters which affected fundamental rights, it would be contrary to the rule of law that limitations on those rights would be subject to the exercise of unfettered discretion (see further Rogan, 2014).

Accountability in prisons is a critical concept for the safe running of prisons and the vindication of the rights of prisoners. It is also important that we learn more about how accountability mechanisms feel to both prisoners and staff, in order to advance our understanding of what accountability means, and why it is important in the prison context.

Accountability in our prisons: Blog for Justicia +

Prison Law at Dublin Institute of Technology

We are delighted that the School of Languages, Law and Social Sciences is the first academic institution to offer a module in Prison Law anywhere in Ireland.

I developed this module, and it first ran in 2014/15. The level of interest and engagement from students was heartening, and bodes well for the future of the subject, the legal profession and the prison system.

As Sharon Dolovich of UCLA has written so persuasively, prison law is an essential topic for law students. Our traditional courses tend to stop at the moment of conviction or sentencing. It is very rare for law students to examine what happens post-sentencing, and yet prisons are a hugely important source of public law. Classic administrative law decisions such as St Germain developed from a prison law issue.

This should come as no surprise. Prisons are places where the rule of law can be in peril, and the fairness of decision-making has important consequences for penal legitimacy. The good order of prisons is intimately connected with feelings of justice and fairness, amongst both prisoners and staff. Reasons for decisions, and opportunities to seek external redress are two critical elements in a prison system which upholds the value of the rule of law.

Prisons can also be important sources of human rights principles, and family law, particularly where visiting rights are at issue. As Hogan J has written in Connolly v Governor of Wheatfield Prison:

While due and realistic recognition must be accorded by the judicial branch to the difficulties inherent in the running of a complex prison system and the detention of individuals, many of whom are difficult and even dangerous, for its part the judicial branch must nevertheless exercise a supervisory function to ensure that the essence of these core constitutional values and rights – the dignity of the individual and the protection of the person – are not compromised … The obligation to treat all with dignity appropriate to the human condition is not dispensed with simply because those who claim that the essence of their human dignity has been compromised happen to be prisoners. …

The obligation to treat all with dignity appropriate to the human condition is not dispensed with simply because those who claim that the essence of their human dignity has been compromised happen to be prisoners. …

Prisons can test the limits of the universality of human rights principles, and the application of those principles in prisons teaches us much about human rights norms.

I look forward to seeing a generation of lawyers trained in prison law transforming jurisprudence on prison law and enhancing the accountability of the prison system. I hope our module on Prison Law will play a small part in that process.

More information on studying Prison Law as a CPD option can be obtained from:

Prison Law at Dublin Institute of Technology

The definition of a ‘sentence’ and the Callan decision

The decision of Callan v. Ireland and the Attorney Generawas handed down by the Supreme Court this afternoon. Two judgments, one by Hardiman J, the other by Clarke J, were delivered, in which the rest of the five-judge court concurred. The decision contains an important examination of the definition of the term ‘sentence’ for the purposes of benefitting from remission. Though the number of prisoners impacted is small, the implications for the plaintiff of the decision are very significant.

Mr Callan had been sentenced to death in 1985 for the murder of a Garda. In 1986 the Government recommended to the President that this sentence be commuted to one of forty years’ imprisonment. The then President exercised his powers of commutation under Article 13.6 of the Constitution.  There was apparent confusion regarding the precise details of this commutation, and it had originally been thought that the commutation contained the condition that there would be no remission for Mr Callan, but it transpired during the course of the hearing of the case that, in fact, no such restrictions had been placed upon it.

Mr Callan argued that he was entitled to remission of his sentence, which currently stands at one quarter of the time imposed, with the possibility of earning one third remission. This only applies to a person serving a sentence of imprisonment of one month or more. The Prison Rules 2007, specifically Rule 59(2)permits up to one-third remission for prisoners who have shown further good conduct by “engagement in authorised structured activity to such an extent as to satisfy the Minister for Justice and Equality that they are less likely to reoffend and will be better able to reintegrate into society”. The State argued that he was not so entitled. At the Supreme Court hearing the State put forward the position that Mr Callan was serving a “commutation” rather than a sentence of imprisonment.

This argument was roundly rejected by the Supreme Court. It held that the commutation had substituted one form of sentence (a death sentence) for another (originally penal servitude, but then imprisonment, as the concept of penal servitude was abolished in 1997). Hardiman J engaged in an interesting analysis of the Irish language provisions on the power of commutation. Both judgments had no difficulty in finding that the commutation had substituted Mr Callan’s sentence of death to one of imprisonment, and, as such, the rules of remission were applicable.

The State had also argued that a decision of Carney v. Ireland [1957] IR 25 was on point. It had held that the rules of remission did not apply to persons serving a sentence of penal servitude. The prison authorities, had, it seems, effectively ignored this decision and allowed such prisoners the benefit of remission under the Rules. Again, the Supreme Court, particularly Hardiman J was highly critical of this argument, considering that the State could not pick and choose how it would apply decisions of the courts.

Mr Callan had put forward other arguments including an interesting one (and one rejected decisively by the High Court) regarding the discriminatory treatment between him and those sentenced for ‘capital murder’ under section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1990. The rules of remission do apply to such individuals. The Supreme Court did not consider it necessary to deal with this aspect of the case. This is a pity given the views expressed by the High Court on the matter. Hanna J held:

in examining whether the plaintiff has been discriminated against, it would be anomalous to compare him to persons sentenced for murder under s. 3 of the Act of 1990, as he was not sentenced under that Act. In determining whether discrimination has occurred, the plaintiff can only properly be compared with those persons sentenced to death under the Offences Against the State Act 1861 (hereafter “the Act of 1861”), as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1964, whose sentences have been commuted to imprisonment. The plaintiff has not been treated unequally, nor has he been subjected to unfair discrimination. The plaintiff has not identified any one person who was convicted of capital punishment prior to 1990 who has had his/her sentence commuted and has subsequently been given the benefit of remission.

Hanna J also held:

Article 40.1 of the Constitution guarantees equality before the law. However, the plaintiff has not been treated unequally simply because there is a difference between his remission entitlements and those of persons sentenced under the Act of 1990; and nor has the plaintiff been subjected to unfair discrimination. It is the nature of legislation that it changes the legal landscape and the fact that the Act of 1990 altered the remission entitlements of people who had yet to be convicted and sentenced simply reflects the prospective nature of the legislation, and cannot amount to discrimination.

This analysis is in contrast to that of the European Court of Human Rights in the decision of Clift v. United KingdomThe traditional approach under Article 14 of the Convention was to refuse to apply ‘other status’ to prisoners alleging a difference in treatment which was grounded in the State’s view of the seriousness of an offence. In Clift the differential treatment at issue concerned release provisions for those serving determinate sentences compared to those serving indeterminate sentences. The usually restrictive approach of the Court to Article 14 and differences in treatment arising out of the views of States on matters concerning offences and sentences was softened somewhat. The Court considered that where an early release scheme applies differently to prisoners depending on the length of their sentences, there is a risk that, unless the difference in treatment is objectively justified, it will run counter to the very purpose of Article 5. In Clift the applicant was able to prove that he had “other” status and, moreover, that the differential treatment was in breach of Article 14.

It would have made for most interesting analysis were the Supreme Court required to grapple with the question of whether Mr Callan was treated differently to those convicted under section 3 in a manner which breached his right to equality under the Constitution. Such analysis would have important implications for other differences in treatment such as the rules on temporary release.

With respect to temporary release, the Criminal Justice (Temporary Release of Prisoners) Act 2003  states that the Minister for Justice may direct the temporary release of a prisoner who is serving a sentence of imprisonment. The Supreme Court has now indicated its view that Mr Callan is serving such a sentence.

Update: 20/7/13.

A piece in today’s Irish Times quotes Liam Herrick from the Irish Penal Reform Trust indicating that, to date, only one person has ever benefitted from the enhanced remission provisions of the Prison Rules, 2007.

The definition of a ‘sentence’ and the Callan decision

Using the European Convention on Human Rights in prison law cases: Lessons from Scotland | Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT)


The Irish Penal Reform Trust and Dublin Institute of Technology are pleased to announce that Tony Kelly, leading Scottish human rights and prison law solicitor, will speak to the topic: Using the European Convention on Human Rights in prison law cases: Lessons from Scotland.

The seminar takes place on Wednesday, May 30th, 2012 from 6-7.30pm in Room 5034 (fifth floor), Dublin Institute of Technology, Aungier Street, Dublin 2 (for directions see:

The event will be followed by a reception.

Tony Kelly, partner in Taylor & Kelly, solicitors, Scotland, has been involved in some of the most high-profile and difficult human rights cases in the United Kingdom. Tony Kelly is also a part-time Professor of Law at the University of Strathclyde.

Taylor & Kelly have been forefront of prisoner’s litigation since their inception some 12 years ago.  The firm took forward, on behalf of petitioner Robert Napier, proceedings which challenged the conditions in C Hall in HM Prison Barlinnie.  Mr Napier was successful in obtaining an interim order transferring him out of the appalling conditions. Taylor and Kelly also successfully argued that Mr. Napier should receive damages as a result of being subjected to conditions which breached Article 3 of the European Convention in Human Rights.  Taylor & Kelly also represented the petitioners in Greens, Stanger and Wilson, where it was successfully argued that the slopping out of chemical toilets was in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Taylor & Kelly have also been involved in landmark cases concerning the voting rights of prisoners and segregation in prisons. Chambers, a highly regarded guide in the legal profession, gives Taylor & Kelly a ranking of 1 in civil liberties. Chambers has also consistently recognised Taylor & Kelly as being at the cutting edge of human rights work, through its involvement in litigation on behalf of prisoners and also in representing Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi in his high profile appeal.

A certificate of attendance will be provided for those wishing to claim CPD points. Please contact if you require such a certificate. 

This seminar is funded by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences, as part of its Research Development Initiative. It is part of a collaborative project between Dublin Institute of Technology and the Irish Penal Reform Trust. See:



Using the European Convention on Human Rights in prison law cases: Lessons from Scotland | Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT).

Using the European Convention on Human Rights in prison law cases: Lessons from Scotland | Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT)

NI Prisoner Ombudsman to speak on Prisoner Complaints and Investigations into Prison Deaths | Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT)

REMINDER: NI Prisoner Ombudsman to speak on Prisoner Complaints and Investigations into Prison Deaths | Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT).


The Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) is delighted to welcome Northern Ireland Prisoner Ombudsman, Pauline McCabe, to Dublin as keynote speaker at a seminar and launch event taking place this Friday, 30th March 2012 at 11am in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin Castle.


Strengthening Accountability Behind Bars: Prisoner Rights and Prisoner Complaints will outline the rights of prisoners while they are in custody, whilst also examining the structures that need to be in place in order to protect these rights. A new publication, the Know Your Rights Your Rights as a Prisoner, produced jointly with the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, will be launched at the event.


Pauline McCabe has established her office at the cutting edge of prison accountability internationally and she will speak about her work investigating prisoner complaints and deaths in custody, and will address wider themes of accountability within the prison system in Northern Ireland.


A panel discussion, chaired by Gráinne McMorrow SC, will follow the address. Panellists will include:


  • Mr Jimmy Martin, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Justice and Equality
  • Brian Murphy, Deputy Director, Operations, Irish Prison Service
  • Mr John Clinton, General Secretary, Prison Officers Association


A former prisoner will also speak about his experiences.


For all media enquiries, interviews with speakers, and images, please contact: Fíona Ní Chinnéide: T: (01) 874 1400; M: 087 181 2990; E:


This publication and seminar are funded by the Irish Research Council for the Humanities and Social Sciences, as part of its Research Development Initiative. It is part of a collaborative project between Dublin Institute of Technology and the Irish Penal Reform Trust. See:




1. NI Prisoner Ombudsman |


The Prisoner Ombudsman is appointed by the Minister of Justice for Northern Ireland and is completely independent of the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS). The Prisoner Ombudsman investigates complaints from prisoners held in Northern Ireland who remain unhappy with how their complaint has been responded to by the Prison Service. The Prisoner Ombudsman also investigates all deaths in Prison Service custody in Northern Ireland. The current Prisoner Ombudsman is Pauline McCabe. She is supported in her work by a team of investigators and other support staff.


2. Know Your Rights: Your Rights as a Prisoner


Produced jointly by the ICCL and IPRT, the Your Rights as a Prisoner pack aims to help prisoners understand the rights they have while in prison. It is written in everyday language and is informative and easy to use. Following its launch on Friday 30th March, the booklet will be available online at and; it will also be available in print on request from IPRT (01-8741400 or Your Rights as a Prisoner will be available in audio format and in translation from summer 2012.


3. IPRT Position Paper 7: Complaints, Monitoring and Inspection in Prisons


This Position Paper assesses the current complaints and investigation structures in Ireland against international human rights standards and obligations, and makes a series of recommendations for the improvement of current mechanisms, including a call for the establishment of an Office of Prisoner Ombudsman to deal with individual complaints. Download the paper here.


4. Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT) |


IPRT is Ireland’s leading non-governmental organisation campaigning for the rights of everyone in prison and the progressive reform of Irish penal policy, with prison as a last resort.


5. Know Your Rights |


The Irish Council for Liberties (ICCL) Know Your Rights public information project is designed to inform people in clear and accessible language about their rights under various key areas of the law in Ireland. Topics covered in Know Your Rights booklets include: Criminal Justice and Garda Powers, Privacy and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

NI Prisoner Ombudsman to speak on Prisoner Complaints and Investigations into Prison Deaths | Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT)

The Old Triangle: A Celebration for the Benefit of IPRT | Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT)

The Old Triangle: A Celebration for the Benefit of IPRT | Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT).

President Michael D. Higgins will join artists including Christy Moore, Karan Casey, Peter Sheridan, Shaz Oye, GREENSHINE, and Nuala Ní Dhomhnaill for an evening celebrating arts in prison and prison in arts.

The celebration takes place this Sunday night (26th February) at 8pm in the Abbey Theatre.

Hope to see you there!

The Old Triangle: A Celebration for the Benefit of IPRT | Irish Penal Reform Trust (IPRT)