Progress in the
Penal System (PIPS)

Current Context

Publication of reports by the Implementation Oversight Group, which was set up to monitor progress on recommendations of the Penal Policy Review Group, has stalled.^[127] The most recent report published was in February 2019, evidence that this substantial delay preceded the Covid-19 pandemic.

In the letter that accompanied the seventh progress report, the Chairperson stated that:

“The Group will review the overall implementation process to date and assess possible ways forward to ensure the promise of the Penal Policy Review Group’s vision is fulfilled.” ^[128]

In September 2020, the Minister for Justice outlined penal reform as a priority issue.^[129] The Minister stated that a review is underway to examine
the progress made since the establishment of the Penal Policy Review Group and its 43 recommendations.^[130] The recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality in its report on Penal Reform and Sentencing will also be examined.^[131] This review, alongside the eighth progress report of the Implementation Oversight Group, is expected to be published by the end of 2020.^[132]

One of the core recommendations made by the Penal Policy Review Group^[133] was to establish Consultative Council to advise on penal policy. A commitment to establish the Consultative Council is contained in the 2020 Programme for Government - Our Shared Future.^[134] The Consultative Council is intended to provide a forum for consultation with various external experts in penal policy and provide oversight in the implementation of penal policy commitments. It could also play an important role in refuting reactive legislative and policy proposals that are not grounded in evidence. The Consultative Council is one mechanism through which the vision of the Penal Policy Review Group can be progressed.

A number of other progressive policy and legislative commitments related to penal reform are outlined in the 2020 Programme for Government,^[135] including:

• Ratify and implement the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture within 18 months of the formation of the Government.

• Establish a high-level cross-departmental and cross-agency taskforce to consider the mental health and addiction challenges of those imprisoned and primary care support on release.

• Review the existing functions, powers, appointment procedures and reporting processes for prison visiting committees.

• Review the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016 to broaden the range of convictions that are considered spent.

• Work with all criminal justice agencies to build capacity to deliver restorative justice, safely and effectively.

IPRT has welcomed and endorsed all of these commitments.^[136]

Further positive developments in the area of policy include the delivery and publication of commissioned research by the Department of Justice as part of its Data and Research Strategy 2018-2020.^[137] In particular, IPRT welcomes the publication of An Evidence Review of Recidivism and Policy Responses.^[138] The review demonstrates that community sanctions are more effective than short-term prison sentences in reducing re- offending. It also identifies ‘dynamic’ (i.e. where intervention is possible) risk factors associated with recidivism such as unemployment and substance misuse. The importance of procedural fairness is also highlighted, whereby if people in conflict with the law believe they have been treated fairly, the likelihood of reoffending may be reduced:

“The evidence suggests that prisoners behave better when they feel that they are being listened to; treated respectfully and courteously; given an opportunity to state their view; and subjected to equitable rule enforcement. If this improved behaviour continues in the community it is to everyone’s benefit.”^[139]

The research found that procedural unfairness communicates disrespect leading to further alienation, resistance and noncompliance. Early release programmes were also found to reduce reoffending; this was linked with trust. The findings of An Evidence Review of Recidivism and Policy Responses should form an important basis for future policy development.

An Evidence Review of Confidence in Criminal Justice Systems was also commissioned by the Department of Justice.^[140] This identified a number of interventions to improve confidence in the criminal justice system. The review similarly identified the importance of applying procedural justice principles, along with the development of strategies to improve community policing and the use of restorative justice.

The Department of Justice also published a literature review that identified best practices in relation to victims’ interaction with the criminal justice system, including: the need for effective communication and information sharing, victim- centred responses, clearly-defined victim participation schemes, tailored approaches for victims with specialist needs (such as victims of sexual violence), and equal access and enforcement of rights.^[141]

All of the above reviews will support evidence-led policymaking in the criminal justice system in Ireland. However, further investment is needed to provide an evidence-based research infrastructure. As identified by one of the leading Professors of Criminology in Ireland:

“Those of us with an interest in criminology and criminal justice in Ireland — mine stretches back more than 30 years at this stage — have long been frustrated by the lack of research infrastructure, reliable data and expert analysis. This has adversely impacted the quality of the debate about crime and punishment and puts us at a great disadvantage when it comes to, first, deciding how to respond and, secondly, deciding whether any response has had the desired effect.”^[142]

These reviews should set the context for larger pieces of independent, empirical research, which should be properly funded by the State. During 2020, the Department of Justice undertook consultations on its first Criminal Justice Sectoral Strategy with various stakeholders including non- governmental organisations.^[143] This wider external engagement in agenda setting is something PIPS has previously called for.^[144]

The publication of the Draft Youth Justice Strategy in May 2020 is also promising, in particular proposals for diversion programmes for 18-24 year olds.^[145] Evidence shows that the right interventions at the right points in time can lead to a reduction in offending rates among young adults.^[146] The Programme for Government also commits to examining the potential to increase the age limit for the Garda Youth Diversion Programme to 24 years.^[147]

Finally, at the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Irish Prison Service and the Department of Justice adapted their penal policy approach through granting temporary release to low risk prisoners assessed on a case-by-case basis.^[148] This positive action shows how the system could adapt, respond, and evolve during an emergency, and should be both maintained and extended. (See Standard 2, Imprisonment as a last resort).

Current Context

PIPS 2019 reported that Ireland’s imprisonment rate in July 2019 was 82 per 100,000.^[170] As of July 2020, Ireland’s imprisonment rate was 75 per 100,000.^[171] This 7% reduction is attributed to the increased number of prison releases and a decrease in prison committals that occurred during the initial period of the Covid-19 pandemic,^[172] and is not linked with long-term policy or sentencing reform.

Custodial sentences

Annual figures reveal a continual increase in prison population numbers in Ireland since 2017. There was a 2% increase in the daily average number of people in custody from 3,893 in 2018 to 3,971 in 2019.^[173] There was again a significant increase in the number of people committed to prison for short sentences:^[174]

• Those committed under sentence of less than 3 months increased by 75 or 12.1%, from 618 in 2018 to 693 in 2019.
• Those committed under sentence of 3 to less than 6 months increased by 116 or 7.8% from 1,491 in 2018 to 1,607 in 2019.
• Those committed under sentence of 6 to less than 12 months increased by 158 or 15.9% from 995 in 2018 to 1,153 in 2019.

There was a total of 3,453 committals on short sentences (excluding committals for fines default) in 2019. By comparison, 2,791 community service orders were carried out in the same year.^[175]

In 2019, there was another decrease on numbers participating in early release programmes from prison, from 218 in 2018 to 206 in 2019.^[176] Compliance rates for community return remain high at 89%. There has been a revision of the qualification time from 50% of total sentence to 50% of remitted sentence for eligible cases serving sentences of less than three years. However, the Irish Prison Service failed to meet its own target of 250 releases.^[177] Planned and structured early release, including parole, for prisoners is important.

As highlighted by O’Donnell (2020):

“the act of placing trust in prisoners and holding them to their word leads to an improvement in behaviour.”^[178]

2019 also saw the number of committals for the non-payment of court-ordered fines almost double from 455 in 2018 to 861 in 2019.^[179] The operation of the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014^[180] should be reviewed to inform further development and implementation of alternative sanctions to imprisonment.

Non-custodial sentences

Community sanctions must be accessible and available nationwide so that the judiciary has full confidence in applying these sanctions. The Probation Service plays an important role in providing the judiciary with pre-sanction and community service reports.^[181] In 2019, an inter- agency group comprising key stakeholders across the justice sector was established to focus on improved effectiveness in the area of pre-sanction assessment reports. The group considered a broad range of issues and made proposals. These proposals should be published, to help inform the development and administration of community sanctions.^[182]

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Probation Service, like other criminal justice agencies adapted its way of working, including developing specific targeted responses for those at most risk of offending.^[183] However, generally, there has been less information made publicly available on how the Probation Service and community sanctions have operated during the pandemic. During the initial lockdown, community service sites were closed for health and safety reasons. The Probation Service used telephone and video contact during this period.^[184] Since then, as a result of Covid-19 restrictions such as social distancing, community service sites are operating but at reduced capacity.

In March 2020, 2,376 people were on a Community Service Order. In July 2020, there was a 26% decrease in the number of people on Community Service Orders at 1,747.^[185] Over the same period, there was a 22% increase in the numbers on Community Return^[186], i.e., prisoners returning to the community through a structured early release programme. Seventy-nine people were on Community Return in March 2020, with numbers rising every month, reaching 97 in July 2020.^[187]

There will be a need for ongoing review of how community sanctions operate in the context of the pandemic, with a need for innovative solutions to avoid any potential negative impact on the prison population.

Need for analysis

Analysis is needed to examine why increasing numbers of short sentences continue to be handed down in the Courts, when legislation – the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Amendment Act 2011^[188] – requires the court to first consider community service as an alternative. Such analysis should examine whether there have been ‘net widening effects’ (i.e. where community sanctions are being used for low-risk offenders who would otherwise have received lighter sanctions) in the criminal justice system, since a reduction in short- term prison sentences has not coincided with an increased use of community service orders. The analysis should also examine the effectiveness of community sanctions with a view to strengthening confidence in their operation across the country, in order to reduce the use of short-term custodial sentences. Where barriers to the use of community sanctions by the Courts are identified, these must be addressed. The proposed analysis should also examine the use of structured release programmes such as the Community Support Scheme and the Community Return Programme, with a view to enhancing and expanding successful programmes.

Sentencing Data and Guidelines

In 2020, a Sentencing Guidelines and Information Committee was established, as required by the Judicial Council Act 2019.^[189] The functions of the Committee include: drafting and amending sentencing guidelines; monitoring the operation of sentencing guidelines; and collating information on sentences imposed by the courts. The systematic collation and publication of sentencing data will be important to inform policy and enhance public confidence in the justice system. However, it is important that the introduction of sentencing guidelines does not impact adversely on penal policy. In this respect, imprisonment as a sanction of last resort should be enshrined as a core sentencing principle, as previously recommended by the Penal Policy Review Group.^[190]

The principle of imprisonment as a last resort is outlined in the 2020 Review of Suspended Sentences published by the Law Reform Commission:

“The basic premise of the principle of last resort is that a custodial sentence should not be imposed unless no other penalty or sanction would be sufficient to reflect the seriousness of the offending behaviour. The development of this principle has received much less attention in the Irish courts than other sentencing principles, such as proportionality. However, it has been suggested that the constitutional principle of proportionality implies that prison should only be used as a last resort. As all sentences must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender, it therefore follows that, in order for this principle to be observed, the most serious form of punishment available under Irish criminal law – the deprivation of personal liberty – should only be reserved for the most serious offending behaviour.^[191]

The Commission recommended that part suspended sentences rank below a term of imprisonment and above the Community Service Order on the scale of severity and above a fully suspended sentence. It examined mitigating factors relevant to whether a sentence should be suspended. This included factors such as: illness/ physical/mental disability and family circumstances including pregnant women or women with dependent children.^[192] The Commission recommended that these factors could be set out in a sentencing guideline by the Sentencing Guidelines and Information Committee.

IPRT recommends that the principle of parsimony in punishment (i.e., that the use of prison should be minimised, and that sentences should be no longer than absolutely necessary) should also inform the future development of sentencing guidelines. These proposed principles would counteract the potential risk of sentence inflation that, at least for some offences, may have been linked with the development of sentencing guidelines in other jurisdictions.^[193]

Covid-19 Releases

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the categories of prisoner targeted by the Department of Justice and the Irish Prison Service for release were those serving sentences of less than 12 months for non- violent offences and those who had less than six months remaining to serve.^[194]

Full temporary releases 2018–2020^[195]:

Temporary releases doubled in March 2020 (in response to the Covid-19 pandemic) compared to March 2019. Of the 470 people granted full temporary release in March 2020, 64% were serving a sentence of less than 12 months.^[196] The number of temporary releases for females increased from 23 in March 2019 to 56 in March 2020. For males, temporary releases doubled from 202 to 414 in the same period.^[197]

While these actions were necessary and strongly welcomed by IPRT, there may have been other prisoners who were suitable for release but who were excluded from the eligibility criteria. At the outset of the pandemic, and in line with calls from international human rights bodies, IPRT had called for the release of particularly vulnerable cohorts of prisoner, such as the elderly, subject to public safety risk assessment.^[198] This was echoed by the Office of Inspector of Prisons and Maynooth University in July 2020:

“Criteria for release included the remaining length of sentence and whether the offence was violent in nature. However, there are still persons who could arguably be categorised as of a low risk to the community, but who were not considered for release within the existing criteria. The current circumstances provide an opportunity to review these early release criteria. We urge that mechanisms for early release and alternatives to custody are used to the widest extent.”^[199]

For those prisoners who have remained in prison during the pandemic, the harmful effects of imprisonment were exacerbated through the imposition of Covid-19 restrictions, including: greater isolation from family and social networks, limited out-of-cell time, a lack of purposeful activity, with wider uncertainty of the situation including its impact on sentence management and reintegration.

Current Context

There has been attention on the increased use of pre-trial detention around the world, described as ‘too often the norm, not the exception.’^[211] In Ireland in 2019, of 8,939 committals to prison more than one-third, 3,366 were on remand.^[212] The average number of people being held on remand is growing annually: 584 in 2017, 677 in 2018 and 707 in 2019.^[213]

This sustained increase in the number of people held on remand means it is a challenge to detain the remand prison population separately from the sentenced prison population. In the meantime, the State maintains its reservation to ICCPR Article 10.2, stating:

“Ireland accepts the principles referred to in paragraph 2 of article 10 and implements them as far as practically possible. It reserves the right to regard full implementation of these principles as objectives to be achieved progressively.”^[214]

Overcrowding continues to be cited as a barrier to its full implementation. The State’s only dedicated remand facility, Cloverhill prison has a maximum capacity of 431. Therefore, a reduction in the number of people being held on remand is needed to allow the State to comply with ICCPR Article 10.2. The new Limerick Prison will allow for both male and female remands and sentenced prisoners to be separated, though the Irish Prison Service has stated that this will be dependent upon operational or prisoner population constraints.^[215]

The increasing seriousness of charges has been cited as a particular feature of remand prisoners by the Director General of the Irish Prison Service, who has said that remand prisoners are required to be held for much longer periods and at higher levels of security.^[216] However, there is no published data available to interrogate this. Further publication of data and analysis is required to understand the reasons for the increasing use of pre-trial detention in Ireland, and introduce interventions to reverse these trends.

Remand detention should also be contextualised within broader economic and social issues. In 2019, 7.8% (697) of all people committed to prison declared they were of ‘no fixed abode’.^[217] This is likely to be an under-estimate of the true number of homeless people ending up in prison. The Jesuit Centre for Faith and Justice highlighted that homelessness should never be used as a deciding factor on whether to impose a custodial remand sentence, and, that in such cases, conditions must be attached such as the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government must be obliged to provide suitable accommodation so the person can be placed on bail.^[218]

The first confirmed case of Covid-19 in Irish prisons was on 21 August 2020, of a young homeless woman remanded into custody charged with the offence of threatening and abusive behaviour.^[219] This raises significant questions about the type of offences for which women are committed to prison, not to mention the risks associated with prison committals during a pandemic.

An IPS interim report on women on remand showed a 37% increase in the number of female remand committals over the period of 2013-2019.^[220] The proportion of female committals on remand has increased steadily from 62% in 2013 to 71% of all female committals in 2017. The analysis shows that a number of women are being remanded into custody multiple times in one year, tripling from 43 women in 2013 to 125 women in 2019. The analysis also shows that from 2016-2019, over one-quarter (26.6%) of women on remand had a charge in the category of ‘theft and related offences’ as their most serious offence. This figure compares to 13% for men.

A reduction in the use of pre-trial detention can be brought about through the introduction of relevant supports to help people comply with bail conditions. The benefits of bail supports schemes include:

• allow the accused to remain within their community
• address offending-related behaviour where that is relevant
• encourage attendance at court
• increase court efficiency
• decrease the number of remands and
• result in cost savings

There are gender-specific bail programmes in other jurisdictions such as Glasgow Women’s Supported Bail Service in Scotland.^[221] This programme helps to keep women out of prison through addressing issues that contribute to offending behaviour such as addiction, mental health, housing and homelessness.

In Ireland, the Bail Supervision Scheme (BSS) has successfully reduced the number of children remanded into custody. On average, the children enrolled on the BSS had a reduction in reoffending almost twice that of the control group.^[222] While addressing child offending is different to that of the adult population, an age-appropriate adaptation of the scheme would support young adults (18-24) transitioning into adulthood and reduce the use of remand detention. IPRT has proposed that this should be further explored as part of the Draft Youth Justice Strategy, which commits to developing specific protocols for the management of young adults.^[223]

During the Covid-19 pandemic, those on remand were most likely to have experienced harsher prison conditions. The rights of remand prisoners are further described in the next section.

Current Context

The PIPS vision of a best-practice prison system is one where single-cell accommodation is the default option. Where people choose to share cells, a thorough risk assessment should be undertaken on a regular basis. Single cell accommodation may act as a safeguard against violence.^[244] The Mountjoy Visiting Committee has observed that: “The value of single cell accommodation cannot be overstated, reflecting a commitment to the dignity and privacy of the person.”^[245]

Single-cell accommodation also acts to protect health particularly within the context of infectious diseases such as Covid-19. Public health guidance reiterates the importance of ‘social distancing’ (i.e. keeping two metres apart) to prevent transmission of the coronavirus. Social distancing cannot occur when prisoners are cell-sharing. Cellmates are described as ‘close contacts’ of quarantined prisoners and therefore have to be quarantined too.^[246] Provision of single-cell accommodation would help uphold prisoners’ rights to parity of medical care and a right to bodily integrity, despite restrictions in their liberty.^[247]

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of prisoners sharing cells reduced by 8% from 1,892 in January 2020 to 1,746 in April 2020.^[248] This reduction was brought about through the overall reduction in prison numbers.

Standard 9: Every prisoner has access to single-cell accommodation.

Prior to the pandemic, in December 2019, the Irish Prison Service had increased its bed capacity in the main women’s prison, the Dóchas Centre by 41 from 105 to 146.^[249] This followed an audit described by the Director General as identifying cells “capable of holding two prisoners that are only occupied by one.”^[250] The Midlands Prison bed capacity increased by 30 and Wheatfield Prison increased capacity by 60.^[251] This increase in bed capacity was achieved merely through the addition of extra beds, and not through any increase in prison size or any improved access to regimes. This is regressive penal policy, which must be re-considered – particularly in light of the Covid-19 pandemic and of the requirement to facilitate social distancing.

The Mental Health Commission also highlighted the significant risks associated with shared accommodation, in particular dormitory-style accommodation in mental health care facilities, during the Covid-19 pandemic. The CEO of the Mental Health Commission called for a national review of shared accommodation to address^[252]This recommendation is also of relevance to prison settings where both dormitory style accommodation and shared accommodation exists within the estate.

Given the reduced number of people in prison, there is now an opportunity to work towards provision of single-cell accommodation throughout the estate. This would also allow for people in prison to access toilets in private.

Access to single-cell accommodation is essential in order to meet compliance with infection and prevention control standards including facilitating social distancing, a public health measure likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

Current Context

Children’s rights, in particular the right to direct contact with their parents, as outlined under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,^[255] have been significantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic.

Family visits were suspended from March until July 2020, when prison visiting re-commenced on a phased basis.^[256] (This was later than other residential settings, where visits generally recommenced from end June.^[257]) Initially only one adult was permitted to visit their family member. From 17 August 2020, a maximum of one child was allowed to visit a parent/family member in prison.^[258] The plight of families, in particular having to choose only one child in the family to bring to visit their parent in prison – after 5 months without any physical contact - was documented in a survey conducted by IPRT.^[259] From end August 2020, the reintroduction of local and national restrictions in response to infection rates in the community saw further suspension of visits at county and national level.^[260] By 6 October 2020, in-person prison visits were again suspended across the country.^[261]

While data on prison visits is not published on an annual basis, in 2018 there were 239,769 visitors to the prison estate of whom 50,592 were children.^[262] In the first four months of 2019, there were 78,423 visitors to prisons of whom 16,207 were children.^[263] These figures provide an estimate of the scale of visits affected by the restrictive measures imposed during the lockdown.

In the UK, legal action is being taken by a mother concerning her child’s lack of access to their father during the pandemic. The mother’s lawyers are arguing that a ban on visits and problems with video calls are a breach of children’s rights.^[264]

In Ireland, a High Court challenge is also being brought over the reduction in prison visits.^[265]

A number of positive measures were introduced by the Irish Prison Service in an effort to maintain family contact during the pandemic period. This included the roll-out of video calls as a substitute for visits to prisons.^[266] The use of digital technology is particularly important for prisoners whose families may have never been able to visit, for example foreign prisoners whose families live abroad, and those with elderly relatives.

In a snapshot survey carried out by IPRT, 71% of respondents said they had issues with using ‘alternatives forms of contact’ including video calls.^[267] Reasons cited for this included both financial and technical difficulties.^[268] The Irish Prison Service responded to these issues by providing information sheets and a telephone helpline for families. The Irish Prison Service has been proactive in its communications throughout the pandemic, including assurance for friends and families around local outbreaks of Covid-19, and this is welcome.

Other positive developments included the installation of phones in cells in Cork Prison. Prisoners quarantining and isolating across the estate also had access to in-cell telephones.^[269]

As restrictive measures associated with Covid-19 continue to prevail, the right to family contact and a child’s direct contact with their parent in prison requires scrutiny by the Government. In the UK, arising from an inquiry into the implications for human rights of the Government’s Covid-19 response, the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that the right to privacy for both mothers in prison and their dependent children risks being breached.^[270] The Committee recommended:

“In order to comply with Article 8 of the ECHR, they must ensure that any restriction on visiting rights is necessary and proportionate in each individual case. Children must be allowed to visit their mothers in prison on a socially distanced basis, where it is safe for them to do so.” ^[271]

More generally, there were no reported national policy or legislative developments to support children and families affected by imprisonment from late 2019 to early 2020.

Current Context

Out-of-cell time with access to purposeful activity is central to the rehabilitation process. In 2020, the impact of Covid-19 restrictions within prisons have meant delays for prisoners progressing in the system. Due to reduced access to activities such as school and day programmes, the rehabilitative purpose of prison has deteriorated.

In 2020, despite being identified as an action in PIPS 2019,^[280] there has been no regularly published information on the out-of-cell time available to people in prison.^[281] Therefore it is not possible to assess whether there has been any progress on IPRT’s target that all prisoners should be receiving 12 hours out-of-cell time. However, it was reported that, prior to the pandemic, out of cell time had decreased by 32% from 11 hours and 10 minutes to 7 hours and 35 minutes in the main female women’s prison.^[282]

The impact of limited out-of-cell time on prisoners was a recurrent theme in prison visiting committee reports published in 2020 for the year 2018.^[283] The Mountjoy Prison Visiting Committee Annual Report described negative impact of limited out-of-cell time on mental health, in which some prisoners on restricted regimes developed “disrupted sleeping patterns.” The Committee also reported that some prisoners declined to leave their cells for the two hours guaranteed out-of-cell time (under the Prison Rules, 2007) and “may become disoriented and confused.”^[284]

Prior to the pandemic, the most recent census by the Irish Prison Service shows that almost 15% of people in prison were on a restricted regime (i.e. with less than five hours daily out of cell time).^[285] As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of prisoners on restricted regime increased by 30.8% from 589 in January 2020 to 770 in April 2020.^[286]

Of the 770, 201 were restricted due to Covid-19 infection control measures. This increased by a further 8% in July 2020 to a total of 833 prisoners,^[287] of whom 287 were restricted due to Covid-19 infection control measures.

While IPRT acknowledges that practices such as ‘cocooning’, ‘quarantining’, and ‘isolation’ (see Standard 12, Healthcare) were for medical reasons (Rule 103 of the Prison Rules)^[288], the number of people in prison impacted by limited out-of-cell time during the Covid-19 pandemic period has been immense. Journals were provided to 88 people who were cocooning across seven prisons to capture their lived experiences.^[289] The journals depicted harsh prison conditions, including severely limited access to daily yard time to allow for exercise and fresh air, as described by one prisoner below:[[footnote num=2]90]

“Yesterday, we were let out to the yard at approx. 10:30am [and] today we are out at 6:30pm. That is a long time to be left in a small cell. [..] 30 hrs in cell [is] very hard to do.” ^[291]

Prisoners described feeling like a ‘leper’ or a ‘pariah’ because of being spoken to through a closed door. The significant value of this journalling project extends beyond cocooning, and its findings and recommendations should be applied to conditions experienced by the 15% of the prison population who were held on restricted regimes pre-pandemic.

Snapshot figures (see Indicator S16.1) during the Covid-19 pandemic demonstrate that general out- of-cell time was severely limited. Prisoners from the general population in Dóchas, Cork and Castlerea were subject to similar periods of 19-hour lock-up, while Mountjoy Prison reported 19.5-hour lock up as a standard practice, meaning just 4.5 to 5 hours out of their cell every day.^[292]

Movement of prisoners around prisons was severely restricted, with impacts on out-of-cell and yard time. Prison schools were closed from March to August 2020. Prison gym facilities for prisoners remained open, albeit on a reduced schedule.

New initiatives were developed to bring education into the cell, such as education modules for an in-cell TV channel, and other resources such as quizzes and mindfulness books.^[293] However, more must be done to develop modes of interactive learning in prisons. This is more important given that class sizes have had to be reduced as a result of the pandemic, meaning prisoners have reduced hours access to the schools. Prior to the pandemic, participation rates varied across the prison estate, with Arbour Hill Prison highest at 71.4%, followed by Mountjoy Prison at 35.2%, Wheatfield at 38.3% and Castlerea at 39.2% in February 2020.^[294] The overall education participation rate across the prison estate was 42.4% in February 2020.

Easing of Restrictions

In its follow-up statement issued in July 2020, the CPT emphasised that: “Importantly, temporary restrictions imposed to contain the spread of the virus must be lifted as soon as they are no longer required.”^[295] This relates, in particular, to limitations on arrangements for detained persons to contact the outside world and reductions in the range of activities available to them.

It is important that any ongoing restrictions are proportionate, medically necessary, time-limited and relaxed when it is safe to do so. To this end, it is important that any plans to unwind restrictions are implemented as soon as it is safe to do so.

Current Context

Irish Prison Service Census figures in January 2020 show that 75 people were held in solitary confinement in Irish prisons.^[301] This figure compares with 40 people in the census for January 2019.^[302] Of the 75 in solitary confinement in January 2020, 22% were young adults between the ages of 18–24. This is particularly concerning given the neuro-scientific evidence that brain development continues well into the mid-twenties, and the particularly damaging effects of isolation and lack of access to meaningful activity for this age group.^[303]

Census figures for April and July 2020 show a dramatic increase to 127 and 273 respectively of people on a restricted regime of 22 or more hours per day.^[304] However, these figures include people in quarantine and medical isolation. Therefore, the numbers being held in solitary confinement for non-medical reasons, such as protection, is not known.

Media reports in 2020 suggest that prisoners suspected of having Covid-19 have been held in conditions akin to solitary confinement during the pandemic.^[305] Similarly, in a report published by the Office of Inspector of Prisons and Maynooth University, one prisoner who was cocooning described his experience thus:^[306]

‘My punishment by the courts was prison, now doing my punishment cocooning is like doing my time in solitary confinement. Being punished now for having a chronic, obstructive, pulmonary disease.’

Some prisoners may hide symptoms to avoid being housed in conditions akin to solitary confinement even if only temporarily.^[307] Therefore, it is important that any restricted regime imposed is distinct to that of solitary confinement. This highlights the importance of oversight in our prisons during exceptional circumstances and ensures that these circumstances do not become the norm.^[308]

In July 2020, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation on the revised European Prison Rules, which includes that States should set in their national legislation the maximum period for which solitary confinement may be imposed.^[309]

Current Context

In 2019, an independent prison health needs assessment was commenced^[330] in line with recommendations made by the CPT^[331] in 2011and 2015 on the need for a whole system review of healthcare in prisons and by the Inspector of Prisons in 2016.^[332] The independent review aims to determine future health service requirements, while also considering the views of prisoners and their families. A number of prison visits as part of the assessment had taken place in February 2020.^[333] However, due to Covid-19 restrictions, the project has had to be adapted. The review is expected to establish the current levels of service provision. The final report is expected to be completed by the end of 2020.^[334]

Covid-19 response

The Irish Prison Service established an Emergency Response Planning Team (ERPT) with expertise in a number of areas including: operations, healthcare and infection control. The purpose of the ERPT was to prevent the spread of Covid-19 into a prison setting.^[335] The IPS Executive Clinical Lead was appointed to the National Public Health Emergency Team (NPHET) Vulnerable Persons Subgroup.^[336] This action demonstrates the joint approach between prison health and public health during the pandemic.

The Irish Prison Service followed guidance of the World Health Organisation and has received national and international praise for how it managed its response to Covid-19. A paper on its contract tracing system was submitted to the World Health Organisation as a model of best practice.^[337] It highlighted the benefits of the collaborative approach taken by the Irish Prison Service and the Health Service Executive, which led to the rapid creation of in-prison contact tracing teams in every prison.

Records show that 212 prisoners were tested for Covid-19 between 6 April 2020 and 6 August 2020.^[338] There were no confirmed cases among the prison population until the end of August 2020.^[339] Following this, there were a small number of individual cases confirmed among the prison population in Dóchas, Cloverhill, and Limerick prisons and a contained outbreak in Midlands Prison.^[340]

There were three health-led interventions introduced by the Irish Prison Service during the Covid-19 pandemic: cocooning, quarantine and isolation.

‘Cocooning’ in prison

In line with public health guidance, the Irish Prison Service established a ‘cocooning’ regime for prisoners aged 70+ and for those who were deemed medically vulnerable to the virus. Other identified vulnerable groups of prisoners included those with: cancer, severe respiratory diseases such as severe COPD, rare diseases and pregnant women with cardiovascular diseases. Cocooned prisoners were removed from free association but could associate with each other in specific areas.

The practice of cocooning in prisons started on 25 March 2020 and ceased at the end of June 2020 (in line with the easing of public health restrictions), with the exception of a small number who were removed from this regime by early July 2020.^[341] Prisoners who had been cocooning, and who were concerned about the virus, could request to be placed on a restricted regime.^[342]

Approximately 3-4% of the total prison population were ‘cocooning’ on a weekly basis with the highest number of prisoners cocooning in Midlands, Dóchas, and Arbour Hill prisons. These populations are likely to have included people more vulnerable to the disease, such as the elderly, and pregnant women with cardiovascular diseases.343 At one point, the highest number of prisoners cocooning were women in the Dóchas Centre, comprising

52% of the prison population in that prison.^[344] This reflects the high level of health needs among the female prison population.

Number of Prisoners ‘Cocooning’ (1 May to 3 July 2020):^[345]

% of Prisoners Cocooning per week:^[346]

Quarantining in Prison

Quarantining is the practice of placing newly committed prisoners into confinement for 14 days before being transferred into the general population. Quarantine should be used only as medically necessary, and these procedures should result in living conditions clearly distinct from those found in solitary confinement.^[347] The highest numbers quarantining, as would be expected, in the committal prisons: Cloverhill, Midlands, Cork and Mountjoy.

The purpose of this measure was to reduce the risk that a new committal who might potentially be incubating the virus could spread it to the general prison population.^[348] Lengths of time in quarantine were dependent on the return of tests, which at the height of the pandemic took 10-14 days. This has been reduced in line with waiting times in the community, with a turnaround time of 24 to 36 hours.^[349] The table below outlines the number of people quarantining in prisons from May to July 2020:^[350]

Those either cocooning or in quarantine had access to services and activities including psychological supports, phone calls, television, tuck shop and chaplaincy services. Family contact was also increased through the provision of telephone services and video visits. However, these categories of prisoners were typically served meals in their cells and had access to one hour out of cell time, either on their own or with another prisoner depending on their status. Conditions varied across the prison estate, for example, quarantined prisoners in Loughan House were issued with a mobile phone.^[351]

During the initial lockdown period, prisoners who were in medical isolation were on a more restrictive regime while testing was being completed. Prisoners in medical isolation did not have access to outdoor exercise.^[352]

In the weeks between May and July 2020, 0.2% to 0.8% of the prison population were isolating, with a peak in numbers self-isolating (27) in the third week of May.^[353] A dedicated isolation unit was created in Cloverhill Prison for a confirmed case among the prisoner population; this unit is currently being used to accommodate symptomatic prisoners who are suspected of having Covid-19. Prisoners continue to be isolated in this unit until cleared from isolation through the Covid-19 testing process.^[354]

While the practices of ‘cocooning’, ‘quarantining’ and ‘isolation’ all formed part of the prison service’s response to the serious risk that Covid-19 presents to the physical health of the prison population, the practices share similarities with general restricted regimes. Therefore, oversight of the ongoing use of these practices, including regular review and tests for proportionality, is important.

Covid-19 Implications on General Health

Covid-19 is likely to have resulted in increased delays in accessing external medical appointments by the prison population. In 2018, 54 external medical appointments were recorded as missed in the Midlands Prison in 2018.^[355] This information came to light in an investigation report that highlighted serious concerns regarding the delayed transfer of a terminally-ill man in prison to hospital to receive urgent medical attention. Non-medical staff shortages were given as a reason for the delay in the man’s transfer to hospital. This was described as a “major failing” by the Inspector of Prisons^[356], and it may have amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment.

People with disabilities

Significant issues faced by prisoners with disabilities were identified in research publishedby IPRT in 2020, including the inaccessibility of the prison environment, as well as information and communication inaccessibility.^[357] The research highlighted concerns by prisoners, staff and people working in the criminal justice system about access to the healthcare service. This included its inability to address health inequalities; limited access to specialist services such as physiotherapy; and a lack of continuity of care between prison and the community, demonstrating the need for a more joined up healthcare approach.

IPRT welcomes that in 2019, the Irish Prison Service appointed a lead person to oversee the promotion of equality and diversity in the Service.^[358] The Irish Prison Service must ensure that reasonable accommodations are in place to support equal access of prisoners with disabilities to all aspects of prison life, in line with the Public Sector Duty.^[359] Otherwise, the prison environment is directly contributing to a diminished standard of health among prisoners with disabilities and further exacerbating existing impairments.^[360]

Women’s health

In 2019, a new Women’s Health Taskforce was set up by the Department of Health.^[361] The taskforce aims to improve women’s health outcomes
and their experiences of healthcare. This is an opportunity to develop a continuum of healthcare from community to prison and prison back to the community. It is worth emphasising that, in the initial stages of the pandemic, the highest number of prisoners designated as ‘cocooners’ in any prison were in the main female prison, the Dóchas Centre. This is Ireland’s second smallest closed prison, and a small proportion of the women detained are aged over 50. At one point, 52% of the population in Dóchas were cocooning.^[362] It has been reported that 97% of the Dóchas Centre population require prescription medication.^[363] This demonstrates the high levels of healthcare needs among this group.

Current Context

Current Context:

People with mental health issues are ending up in the prison system due to a lack of access to appropriate services in the community. In 2020, the Mental Health Commission criticised an ‘almost total absence’ of community supports such as crisis houses, intensive care high support units, rehabilitation high support units and specialist rehabilitation units in each mental health area.^[371]

In PIPS 2019, IPRT recommended that a high-level cross-departmental and cross-agency Task Force on Mental Health and Imprisonment should be established, with a focus on progressing short-, medium- and long-term solutions.^[372] To this end, IPRT strongly welcomes the inclusion of a commitment in the Programme for Government to: Establish a high-level cross-departmental and cross-agency taskforce to consider the mental health and addiction challenges of those imprisoned and primary care support on release.^[373]

The Task Force should have a particular focus on identifying and addressing gaps in legislation and community supports to support increased diversion of people with a mental health need away from the criminal justice system. It should also consider the need for additional mental health supports for the prison population, particularly given the impact of restricted regimes and Covid-19 in 2020.

A number of relevant initiatives are outlined in the new National Mental Health Policy, Sharing the Vision: A Mental Health Policy for Everyone.^[374] These include: the development of the new mental health facility in Portrane; the endorsement of the New Connections^[375] report, including talking therapies in prisons; and the continued work of the Prison In- Reach Court Liaison Services (PICLS).

Prison In-Reach and Court Liaison Service (PICLS)

From 2006 to 2014, 1,548 people were diverted from the criminal justice system to healthcare settings by the Prison In-Reach and Court Liaison Service (PICLS). 916 diversions were to outpatient settings, 436 related to general psychiatric hospitals and 196 were admitted to the Central Mental Hospital.^[376] From 2015-2019, PICLS arranged almost one-third (47/153) of all admissions to the Central Mental Hospital and a further 191 admissions to general psychiatric hospitals.^[377]

Since 2016, PICLS Cloverhill has been part of the Quality Network for Prison Mental Health Services (QNPMHS). The mental health service at Cloverhill Remand Prison has seen an increase in compliance against the QNPMHS standards of 74% to 89% over three cycles.^[378] These standards relate to a number of areas including: admission and assessment, case management and treatment, referral, discharge and transfer, patient experience, environment, workforce capacity, workforce training and governance.

Both general admissions and discharges to the Central Mental Hospital have declined in recent years as demonstrated by the information below:^[379]

Further analysis is needed on the reasons for this. The National Forensic Mental Health Service currently has two secure forensic beds per 100,000, this compares with 10 secure forensic beds per 100,000 by comparison with other European states.^[380]

The development of Intensive Care Rehabilitation Units (ICRUs) in Ireland has been deemed as urgent: ‘in the absence of ICRUs, there will continue to be limited diversion to local services of those charged with minor offences but suffering major mental illness.^[381] Provision of four ICRUs was an unfulfilled recommendation in the previous national mental health policy, A Vision for Change.^[382] The new national mental health policy outlines that an Intensive Care Rehabilitation Unit (ICRU) will be built, which will have dual registration as an approved centre under the Mental Health Act and the Criminal Law Insanity Act.^[383] This will accept persons found Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity who do not require the level of care provided in the Central Mental Hospital. However, the development of three other ICRUs is not contained in current capital plans.^[384]

Disability in prison

The new mental health policy also states that the profile of the mental health needs of the prison population needs to be explored to gather prevalence data on autism, intellectual disability and needs relating to addiction and dual diagnosis, stating that this would allow for a more joined-up approach by professionals in delivering care in prison settings.^[385] In 2020, IPRT’s research on disabilities in prison looked at prevalence data on disability among the prison population. Some studies suggest the increasing criminalization of people with disabilities, while others point to increasing rates in which people acquire disabilities in prison settings. The research explored the experiences of access to mental health treatment, in which participants felt that there was a lack of access to psychology supports and a lack of alternatives to prison psychiatry.^[386]

Incidents of Self-Harm

The second annual report on self-harm by the Irish Prison Service, published in 2020, shows that in 2018, an episode of self-harm was recorded for 4% of the prison population.^[387] The rate of self-harm was 5.7 times higher among females than male prisoners. The rate of self-harm was also higher for those on remand than for sentenced prisoners (5.0 compared with 3.7 per 100). Among the sentenced prison population, 28% of self-harm incidents happened amongst those serving sentences of less than a year.

In 45.6% of cases, mental health issues were cited as a primary contributory factor; this predominantly related to the presence of mental disorders (17%) and substance misuse (16%). 32.7% of cases related to ‘environmental’ issues (e.g. accommodation issues/legal issues) and 22.1% to ‘relational’ issues (e.g. difficulties with staff and/or family). ‘Procedural’ issues such as a recent cell move, change in regime or security level were also highlighted in 24.3% of cases. This is an important point, as an evidence review of recidivism and policy responses highlights: “Procedural unfairness communicates disrespect and disregard and leads to further alienation, resistance and noncompliance.”^[388]

IPRT welcomes that the Irish Prison Service has stated that the self-harm data will be used to develop a prison-specific approach with leading specialists in the field over the next year.^[389]

Mental health and Covid-19

Many have said that the crisis that comes after the Covid-19 pandemic will be that of a mental health crisis.^[390] The impact of Covid-19 on the mental health of prisoners has yet to be fully understood, however, this is a key concern raised by prisoner family members.^[391] During the first three months of the Covid-19 pandemic (12 March 2020 to 29 June 2020), provisional figures show there were 36 reported incidents of self-harm across the estate. Of these 33 were among the male prison population and three among the female prison population.^[392]

At the outset of the pandemic, the Irish Prison Service introduced measures to support the mental health needs of prisoners in the absence of face-to-face psychology supports. This included tele-psychology, which consisted of 20-minute telephone sessions. A national telephone line was also established to allow prisoners access to some services.^[393] A total of 550 referrals were received from tele-psychology between 12 March 2020 and 30 June 2020. A total of 891 calls were made to the national helpline to contact chaplaincy, IASIO, psychology or psychiatry services between 11 April and 30 June, of which 135 were made to prison psychology services.^[394] There were 180 prisoners seen in a mental health clinic in March 2020, 172 in April 2020 and 203 in May 2020.^[395]

In an analysis of journals of cocooning prisoners, a key conclusion by the Office of the Inspector of Prisons and Maynooth University was:

“We need to learn from these perceptions of feeling disadvantaged and punished, and consider how best to alleviate these feelings and prepare, if measures are needed again later, to limit the impact on mental health...”^[396]

The Office of the Inspector of Prisons and Maynooth University also called for shorter- and longer-term plans to support all people in custody and staff, as prisons and the country as a whole transition to a ‘new normal’ – considering that, for some, reduced restrictions may heighten their anxiety.^[397] Penal Reform International (2020) have also highlighted the need for mental health plans to be put in place:

“Prison administrations should continue to facilitate mental healthcare provision and undertake specific efforts to mitigate negative mental health impacts of COVID-19 measures, including by working with community-based services. Mental health crisis plans, and longer-term mental health provision needs to be prioritised as restrictions ease. Plans should be developed by healthcare staff and developed together with people detained and staff.”^[398]

Current Context

The Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) outlines the basic principles of an effective complaints mechanism as follows: availability, accessibility, confidentiality/safety, effectiveness and traceability.^[422] It is important that the prison complaints system meets these principles.

The introduction of a revised prison complaints system in the Irish prison system is overdue. The Irish Prison Service did not meet its own timeline for the introduction of an internal complaints system by the third quarter of 2019.^[423] However, measures introduced since reporting on this area in PIPS 2019 include: the establishment of a new Complaints Unit, staff training, and amendments to the Prison Rules, 2007 which are currently being finalised with the expected roll out of the new complaints system before a new timeline of end 2020.^[424]

In 2019, there was a 25% decrease in the number of ‘Category A’^[425] complaints from 80 in 2018^[426] to 60 in 2019.^[427] Category A complaints are the most serious form of complaints and are investigated by persons outside the Irish Prison Service.^[428] However, a decrease in the number of complaints in a closed setting cannot be assumed to be a positive indicator^[429], given the lack of faith and confidence in the complaints system highlighted in various reports.^[430] For example, in a chaplaincy report for the Dóchas Centre, it was reported that:

“In most cases, the women involved did not feel safe to make complaints in writing to the governor for fear of further penalisation from the staff involved.”^[431]

The CPT outlines the importance of the establishment of a national system for compiling statistics on complaints and outcomes.^[432] This would identify trends and inform future policies aimed at improving the functioning of the complaints system. At the time of writing, information related to all other categories of complaints made by prisoners was not made available.

Prison Visiting Committees have a role in hearing individual complaints from prisoners,^[433] and if requested, hear these complaints in private.^[434] They have a role in seeking informal resolutions, however they do not have the power to formally resolve prisoners’ complaints.^[435] There is no information available on how prison visiting committees in Ireland met their duties during the Covid-19 lockdown (13 March 2020 to 29 June 2020). By contrast, Independent Monitoring Boards (the equivalent to Prison Visiting Committees) in the UK published information on alternative remote working arrangements due to the pandemic.^[436]

Current Context

Prisoners in Ireland still have no access to a fully independent complaints and appeals mechanism. The Office of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction is expected to be extended to prisons. However, the new internal prison complaints system must be implemented prior to the authorisation of the extension of the Office of the Ombudsman’s remit to prisons by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.^[442] This is now expected to occur 12 months after the introduction of the Irish Prison Service internal prisoner complaints system, which would be end 2021.^[443]

During 2019, officials from the Office of the Ombudsman accompanied staff from the Irish Prison Service on visits to the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. It is of note that the Northern Ireland Prisoner Ombudsman in 2018-2019 received 408 individual complaints, an increase of 74% from 2017–2018.^[444]

Current Context

Inspection and monitoring is vital to the protection of human rights of prisoners. A number of factors can increase the vulnerability to breaches in human rights of people held in a prison environment:

“The protection of human rights in prison gives rise to unique challenges. The power differentials and dynamics involved, the need to balance considerations of security with those of dignity, and the lack of openness to the outside world mean that the implementation of human rights principles takes on a particular importance in these environments. International human rights law has increasingly emphasized the importance of external oversight of prisons as a way to prevent torture and ill-treatment and to uphold fundamental rights more generally.”^[447]

New research by Prisons: the Rule of Law, Accountability and Rights (PRILA) has found evidence of a lack of awareness and deficit of trust among the prison population in Ireland towards prison monitoring.^[448] Qualitative research conducted in three prisons found that prisoners were largely unaware of the Inspector of Prisons. Despite this, prisoners viewed the concept of monitoring as a good way to protect rights. The visibility of monitors, clarity in their roles and powers, and ensuring that a variety of voices are heard by monitoring bodies are important elements of a good system of prison oversight.^[449] Key aspects of good prison monitoring as perceived by prisoners included: access (to all parts of the prison including the yard or landing), visibility, and confidentiality – particularly in the context of making a complaint. Key recommendations from the research are:

• Inspection and monitoring bodies should consult with prisoners on what is important from their perspective for human rights standards and the protocols of monitoring bodies
• The freedom of a body to walk around without any limitations is valued by prisoners
• Further research into the experience of particular categories of prisoners, including women, older people and people with disabilities, of prison inspection and monitoring would be valuable

Ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT)

The State has failed to ratify the OPCAT and there has been no establishment of a National Preventive Mechanism. Almost all EU Member States have signed and ratified the OPCAT with the exception of Ireland, Belgium and Slovakia who have signed but not ratified, and Latvia.^[450] For the third year in a row, the Department of Justice and Equality has stated that the General Scheme of the legislation required is expected to be ready for formal drafting before the end of the year.^[451]

The 2020 Programme for Government commits to the ratification and implementation of OPCAT within 18 months of the formation of government. This is welcome. However, if Ireland had ratified OPCAT prior to the pandemic, it may have supported stronger oversight during the Covid-19 pandemic for all people deprived of their liberty. In New Zealand, for example, the work of the Chief Ombudsman was described by the Secretary of Justice as an ‘essential service’ during Covid-19. A report on prisons and recommendations by the Ombudsman were accepted by the Ministry for Justice in New Zealand,^[452] and a Statement of Principles was created by the Ombudsman to guide staff in managing the Covid-19 crisis.^[453]

Office of the Inspector of Prisons

IPRT welcomes the additional resourcing of the Office of the Inspector of Prisons in 2020, including recruitment of three additional positions: a Data Analyst, Inspector and Senior Inspector.^[454] The Office launched its new Framework for the Inspection of Prisons in Ireland in September 2020.^[455] IPRT welcomes the framework, which is informed by international human rights standards. There are five focus areas of inspection including: safety and security, respect and dignity, health and wellbeing, rehabilitation and development, and resettlement. In particular, IPRT welcomes the Office’s commitment to engage with both prisoners and staff through surveys and interviews.^[456] This is particularly important given the findings of the PRILA research.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Inspector of Prisons continued visiting prisons. All prisons received a one-day visit with specific emphasis on out-of-cell time and provision of meaningful contact.^[457] However, the complete absence of published inspection reports means the public has very little knowledge of how prisons have operated during the pandemic. This was an issue prior to the pandemic. The last prison inspection report was published in 2017.^[458] Since 2008, there has been no published prison inspection report of Cloverhill, Cork, Midlands, Portlaoise or Wheatfield prisons.^[459]

In addition, no annual report for 2019 has been submitted despite the requirement in laws that the Inspector should submit a report by 31 March.^[460]

Prison Visiting Committees

There has been no change to the structure of prison visiting committees in Ireland. IPRT welcomes a commitment in the Programme for Government to: “Review the existing functions, powers, appointment procedures and reporting processes for prison visiting committees.”^[461] (For more on the role of prison visiting committees in the complaints process, see Standard 22.)

The Minister for Justice published annual prison visiting committee reports for 2018 on 25 May 2020.^[462] When the publication of reports is substantially delayed, it renders the reports as less relevant as they do not reflect the current daily life of people in prisons in Ireland.