Debate contribution: Prison Absconder

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 15 September 2026.

MLA: Mrs Naomi Long
Party at the time: Alliance Party
Date: 15 September 2026
Type: Debate contribution (made as a minister)
Business: Question for Urgent Oral Answer
Heading: Prison Absconder
Assembly identifier: Official Report component 5706096

Text

Gary Anderson absconded from a short period of leave under the Prison Service's compassionate temporary release scheme. All sentenced prisoners may apply for that kind of temporary release when a member of their immediate family has died or is critically ill. All applications made under the scheme are subject to a robust risk assessment that will consider the public safety risk posed by the prisoner together with their likelihood of absconding or reoffending. In the case of that prisoner, the Northern Ireland Prison Service considered and refused his application for compassionate temporary release. However, following an urgent judicial review, the court directed that a short period of release should be granted. Gary Anderson was subsequently released yesterday morning but absconded from his chaperone. That was a chaperone approved by the court and not a prison officer. The prisoner is currently unlawfully at large. The absconding was not due to abuse or failure of the Northern Ireland Prison Service compassionate temporary release scheme. The Prison Service, having conducted all the necessary checks and assessments, concluded that the prisoner was not safe to be released on a temporary basis. However, that decision was subsequently set aside by the court. Given those circumstances, I do not believe that it is necessary or proportionate for me to take steps to review how temporary release schemes operate, nor would doing so prevent similar occurrences in the future.
First, there is no suggestion that the scheme is disproportionate. It is based on risk assessment, and such schemes have to exist because of people's article 8 rights. Secondly, it is incredibly rare for a court to proactively overturn a Prison Service decision and not simply refer it back to the service for reconsideration. However, I have asked my officials to consider how rulings of that nature can perhaps inform our thinking going forward, because, as I say, it is incredibly rare for a court to make the final decision to release. In most circumstances, where there is a judicial review and where the court is unhappy with the balance that has been struck by the Prison Service, the decision is referred back to the Prison Service for further consideration.
There are two registered victims and one registered contact in this case. They were contacted, first, to inform them of the court's decision, which was made on Sunday, and, secondly, of the absconding, about which they were informed thereafter. I do not have minutes or times as to when that happened, but that contact was made as soon as that information was made available to us. Understandably, the registered victims are upset, but they appreciate that the decision was not taken by the Northern Ireland Prison Service, and they welcomed the fact that they were notified. That does not, however, change the fact that they will be extremely upset by the decision for temporary release and particularly because the person has absconded.
The direction of the court not only extended to the fact that the individual should be released but gave specific conditions under which he should be released. That included the name of the chaperone who would accompany him during the period of release. That person was a civilian chaperone and not a member of the Prison Service.
The conditions under which the person was released to attend their father's funeral were set by the court. That is the unusual part of this. If, in other circumstances, a judge finds that they wish the Prison Service to reconsider a decision, the judge will often refer that back to the Northern Ireland Prison Service to look at it a second time. In this case, the judgement, which is available should Members wish to see it, goes further and sets out and stipulates conditions around the release. That is the unusual part of this, because it has happened only twice in the memory of those who currently work in the Prison Service.
There is no suggestion that the Prison Service misjudged the case at hand. In fact, I would say that the evidence is to the contrary: that its decision was correctly taken and was right. The way in which these things are done is standard; there is a multidisciplinary review of the individual prisoner. There are particular concerns about the individual prisoner, which I cannot discuss in public. The Prison Service rightly felt that it could not be confident that that person would be able to be returned to prison or that it would be able to do so while maintaining public safety. I do not believe that the Prison Service was at fault in that judgement. It strongly resisted the release, even at the judicial review. We will have to look at the situation. Judicial processes and approaches will change over time, and this was a highly unusual situation. As I said, it has, perhaps, occurred only twice in the past 20 years. We will have to look at how we approach such decisions and appeals in future, where we believe that there is a high risk, having worked with that prisoner over a period of time, and where the judge may take a different view.
What I have in front of me is not a verbatim record of the discussions in court, but the court was fully aware of the Prison Service's reservations and of the challenges that it foresaw in ensuring that that prisoner could be managed during a period of compassionate temporary release and safely brought back into custody at the end of that period. The court then ordered that the Prison Service's decision be quashed and that the person be released under the supervision of a civilian chaperone. That was the decision that the court made in that case. It has to be said that such decisions are often finely balanced. We need to bear that in mind. None of us has the capacity to see the future, so everyone is balancing risk, and every person's assessment of risk may be slightly different. That is the reality of the situation. On this occasion, however, the Prison Service felt that granting compassionate temporary release was neither safe nor appropriate, and, unfortunately, so it has proven.
The first thing to say is that none of this is normal. As I said, it is quite exceptional for the court to set conditions. Were the Prison Service to grant someone compassionate temporary release, the individual would normally be accompanied by prison officers. That is the normal run of things, so none of this is routine. It is, however, the decision that was made. The Prison Service, in considering whether it was safe to release the individual and whether he could be safely returned to custody, would consider its own capacity for ensuring that that happened. It decided that, even with its skills, it would not be in a position to do so. The PSNI is right to warn the public not to approach a person who has absconded from prison and is unlawfully at large, particularly when that person is a violent offender. I have no doubt that the PSNI will make every effort to ensure that the individual is returned to custody, not least because of the seriousness of his original offences. I appeal to people that if they see that individual, not to approach him but to contact the PSNI with any information that they have. This is not someone who is safe to be living in their community, and the more cooperation that we can get from the public in order to return him to custody, the better.
The use of handcuffs and restraints would not be possible unless the chaperone was trained to use them, so the use of handcuffs by a civilian would not be appropriate. In addition, the decision on the conditions that surrounded the period of temporary release was issued as part of the court order.
Whether it is a police chaperone or a Prison Service chaperone, the safety of the staff involved is also a consideration when determining whether it is safe to release a prisoner and whether that prisoner can safely be returned to custody. It is one of the factors that is considered, but it is not the only factor. In this case, the court ruled that a civilian chaperone would accompany the individual on release. The time at which he was released, where he was allowed to go and all of that is set out clearly in the order that was made. He was not, however, under Prison Service supervision.
It is not related to compassionate temporary release. There is a separate scheme for pre-release testing, and that review is under way. We will look at the outcomes and at what we intend to do with that information. Our recommendations and actions will come to the Assembly in due course. This is a separate matter, which is about compassionate temporary release. Therefore, it relates only to short periods to allow someone to visit a dying relative, attend a funeral or do something of that nature. I will not criticise the courts for taking their decision. A balance has to be struck, and people's risk appetite and approach may be different in different circumstances. I can speak only for the parts of the system that are under my control. I believe that Prison Service staff, who work with individuals and observe their conduct in custody and their stability in the prison estate, are best placed in such circumstances to make rational judgements. The Member mentioned other cases in which people without approved leave absconded from custody. Those cases are incredibly rare. In the vast majority of cases concerning, for example, pre-release testing or other forms of short-term release, it is very unusual for people to abscond. Often, in cases in which someone is listed as being at large without approved release, it has been for a matter of hours because someone has been late back to custody, rather than someone literally absconding. It is about striking a balance, but, as the Member knows, the other kinds of periods of leave that he talked about caused us to look again at the system. This case is slightly distinct, in that the decisions were taken and the risk was assessed. However, at the end of the day, every prisoner has the right to seek judicial review of such a decision, and the courts have the right to overturn it, should they feel that it is inappropriate.
Part of the challenge is that that would fly fairly close to interfering in individual decisions, because these are such unique circumstances. It is not a routine matter that happens regularly. Therefore, it would look like a response to this specific case. I have told officials that we will look at the potential implications for how we would manage it in the system, were such occurrences to become more routine. Ultimately, the goal of all that we do is to ensure that the public are safe. As I stand here, I cannot say that that is the case, given the nature of the offending and the fact that the offender is now unlawfully at large in the community. I hope that he will be returned to custody quickly and that we will be able to reassure the public and, crucially, the Kelly family, because, as Mark Durkan rightly said, it is traumatic for any family members who have suffered loss. It is hard enough to accept that compassionate release happens at all, but it is particularly difficult for families if it ends up with a prisoner absconding from custody. We are conscious of that.
First of all, there are no questions for the Court Service, which is the administrative arm of the Department and simply implements the decisions taken by the judiciary. A judge made the decision, not the Court Service, so the issue is not for the Court Service but for the judiciary, which is independent of my office. As the Member would expect, I can and will seek to better understand why it happened. As I said, it has not happened for a long time. It is, I think, more than 20 years since a court last imposed conditions and overturned a decision on release. The more normal process is for a judge to refer a case back to the Prison Service to reconsider. To be clear, it is not the Court Service that decides. The Court Service comprises civil servants who run the administration of the court system. The decision is taken by the judiciary. It is important to say that, as Justice Minister, I respect the independence of our judiciary. It is not for me to lean in and try to influence the decisions that judges make or the way in which they go about their business. Every case that comes before them will be different, and the weight of evidence in every case will be different. The circumstances will be unique. We should therefore not assume that, because something happened on this occasion, it will happen in the same way for ever. It is not necessarily about a change in court processes; it is simply the fact that the circumstances surrounding the case led to this outcome. I have to be careful, because it is not for me to criticise a decision made by a judge who is in full knowledge of the facts and has weighed up all the evidence. It is also important that I do not seek to interfere with decision-making on such matters when they are under judicial review.
In this case, the challenge is that the decision was made on a Sunday about a release on the Monday, which meant that the opportunity for any form of challenge or appeal was constrained. A judicial review found that, had the judge referred the case back to the Prison Service, the Prison Service would have retaken the decision, reached a conclusion and proceeded in that direction. That did not happen in this case. The original decision was quashed, and the judge made a different decision. Once an action has been ordered by the court, Prison Service can do little other than comply with the court ruling. That is what happened in these circumstances. As I said, it is highly unusual. It is not the norm. I do not expect it to become the norm because it happened in this case. However, we will reflect on what our options are in circumstances where we have such serious concerns. Bear in mind, however, that our original decision, the rationale behind it and Prison Service's concerns were not only available to the judge but were reiterated at the time that the decision was made. In balancing that information against the judicial review that was taken, the judge reached a different decision. That is often the case when things go to court.

2,483 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Awaiting analysis

This record has not been analysed yet. It is not counted in any total until it has been assessed.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification