Debate contribution: Compassionate Temporary Release from Prison
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 21 September 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Ministerial Statement
- Heading
- Compassionate Temporary Release from Prison
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5741860
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a statement to the Assembly on the case of Gary Anderson, the circumstances surrounding his compassionate temporary release, his subsequent absconding and information that has come to light following further examination of the matter. At the outset, I reiterate that Karol Kelly's family remain at the very forefront of my thoughts. They have already endured unimaginable pain and loss, and recent events have, understandably, renewed their distress and caused significant concern. The family should never have had to relive that trauma in this way. I know that many members of the public will share those concerns. Subject to the family's wishes, I hope to meet them in the coming days to listen to their concerns and provide assurance that a thorough examination of the case is proceeding. I have asked the permanent secretary to commission an independent review. I will say more about that matter later. I wish to be clear that Gary Anderson remains unlawfully at large. I urge him to hand himself in immediately. I also ask anyone who has information about his whereabouts to contact the PSNI without delay. When I responded to a question for urgent oral answer last Tuesday, I indicated that the court had not afforded the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) an opportunity to reconsider or retake its original decision to refuse compassionate temporary release. That was my understanding at the time; it was also the understanding of the Prison Service. It was only when the judgement was published in full on Friday that a different version of events emerged. I immediately directed officials to establish the facts surrounding the case and the briefing provided to me. I also advised the Speaker that I would return to the House at the earliest opportunity to provide Members with an update based on the fullest information available. Following further examination of the case, it has become clear that the possibility of reconsidering the original decision was discussed during the judicial review proceedings. However, the Department's inquiries indicate that the decision makers in Maghaberry prison were not informed by the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO), acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, that the court was considering such a course of action. The officials responsible for the original decision were, therefore, not given an opportunity to review, reconsider or reaffirm that decision nor were they made aware at the relevant time that the court was exploring whether the matter should be referred back for further consideration. It is important to place on record that the original decision reached by the Northern Ireland Prison Service was to refuse compassionate temporary release. That decision was taken following consideration of issues including risk and public protection. The urgent review that I commissioned in light of that information has identified shortcomings in the handling, communication and escalation of information during the judicial review proceedings, including by the Departmental Solicitor's Office. While those issues arose in the context of rapidly developing litigation and significant operational pressures across the Prison Service, they nevertheless warrant careful scrutiny. The urgent review also identified issues requiring further examination in relation to information relied upon by the Prison Service during the original decision-making process. As I made clear last week, those matters were already subject to review. However, the new information regarding the handling of the litigation means that both issues must now be examined together to establish the full facts and identify any lessons learned. Accuracy and transparency are fundamental principles of ministerial accountability. It is important, therefore, that I place the updated information before the Assembly at the earliest opportunity. Given the seriousness of those developments, however, and the public concern that the case has generated, I have asked the permanent secretary of the Department of Justice to commission a fully independent review of all aspects of the handling of the case. That review will examine the handling of the case from the original compassionate temporary release application through to the judicial review proceedings and the events following Mr Anderson's release. It will consider the actions, decision-making, communications and governance arrangements across the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Department of Justice and the Departmental Solicitor's Office, as well as the advice provided to me. That review will establish the facts, identify any lessons learned and make recommendations for improvement. I have asked the permanent secretary to agree the terms of reference urgently and to appoint a reviewer who is fully independent of the Department. I have been clear throughout that, where lessons can be learned, they must be learned; where improvements are required, they must be made; and where accountability is necessary, it must follow. I will keep the Assembly informed of the outcome of the review and of any actions arising from it.
The Member will be aware that I am willing to meet the family, and we are making arrangements to do that. His office requested that I did so, but I would have wanted to do so anyway to apologise in person for what happened in this case and for any role that the Department may have played in it. I also want to take the opportunity to hear from the family about how this matter has impacted on them because it is important that I do so, and do so face to face. I will seek to do that as quickly as possible. With respect to the changes that will be implemented, it is impossible for me to prejudge the outcome of the independent review that I have commissioned. At this stage, it is impossible for me to say with certainty what recommendations it may bring forward. Therefore, it is impossible for me to answer that question at this juncture without potentially going off track and not doing the things that need to be done.
To be absolutely clear, when I answered the question for urgent oral answer last Tuesday, I advised the House that it would be highly unusual for a court to reach a final determination in a case of that nature without first affording the Prison Service an opportunity to review its decision. We were therefore surprised, to put it mildly, that the court had done so, but we were not aware that there had been any discussion of an offer to review the information until the full judgement was published on Friday afternoon. There was no intention on my part either to confuse the family or cause them distress or to confuse Members or cause them distress.
First, I take exception to the suggestion that I misled the House, inadvertently or otherwise. I was fully transparent in providing the information and did so with full candour. The issue of what my officials provided to me was also addressed with full candour. In the legal read-out that we got of the case, there was no mention of the opportunity to review the case being offered. Although the judge understood the offer to have been made in the court, that was not conveyed to my officials. There was therefore no one in the Department who could have advised me of that fact last Tuesday so that I could make it known. We were aware, of course, that what happened was highly unusual, which is why I brought it to the attention of the House. The reference that I made to the judgement was correct. The judgement itself had been published at that point, and, again, that was without reference to NIPS being asked to reconsider. It was the transcript of the full case that was of interest, and that became available to us only on Friday. Not only did we have to read the transcript, at which point we realised that there was a discussion in the court about whether the matter could be retaken by NIPS, but my officials had to go to the court yesterday to listen to the recordings in order to work out exactly what had happened when the offer was first discussed. That is highly unusual. As I said, I have been absolutely transparent. At the point at which I realised that the information that I had, in good faith, presented last week was not as full or as candid as I would wish, I contacted the Speaker's Office and requested to come to the Chamber at the earliest opportunity to correct it. I cannot see what more a Minister could do. I am confident that my officials keep me informed, but they can do so only to the extent that the information is available to them. I am therefore commissioning a full review of all the processes so that we can identify whether any information that was available to my officials was not passed on to me — at this point, I have no reason to believe that that was the case — or whether there was instead simply a failure of communication between the Departmental Solicitor's Office and my Department.
There are a couple of things. I am not saying that there was no one in the Department with any responsibility for the decision-making process. To be clear, that is not what I am saying. I am saying, however, that I do not believe, as I stand here today, that officials deliberately sought to mislead me before I came to the House last week. The allegation made was that my officials routinely lie to me: they do not. On the issue of the failures, there are three aspects. The first is about the original information that was provided to the courts. The judge deemed that information to be flawed and therefore felt that it was not a basis on which he could stand over the decision of the Northern Ireland Prison Service that Mr Anderson should not be released. That is the first thing. The second thing is that, if such a circumstance arises, we are normally offered the opportunity to review it and to provide further data or clarification as required. That was not communicated to the Department and the decision makers in the Prison Service. No one in the Prison Service was aware that that offer had been made in the court, so that was not a failing of the Prison Service. It was not conveyed either at the time or in the legal read-out of the case by those from DSO who represented us. That needs to be looked at carefully. They have accepted that there was a procedural failing in that regard. The third element is about the substantive decision that was made to release Mr Anderson and to do so in the recognisance of his uncle — a family member. Again, there may be those who question the wisdom of that; I am not in a position to do so. It was for the judge to make the decision, and the judge made that decision. There is, however, a wider issue around civilian escorts in such situations that we need to bottom out. Those are the three key things that appear to me from what I know now. However, I am aware that, even over the past 48 hours, this story has continued to evolve. I am not going to sit back and blame individuals because — I would love anyone in the Chamber who thinks that they have never made a mistake to stand up and say so — I do not want to see people hung, drawn and quartered in public for what was a very difficult and finely balanced decision. I want the review to bottom out exactly what happened and exactly what structures are in place to stop such failings and, if those structures are not adequate, to give me direct advice and guidance on what we need to do to improve things, because, whilst we can provide very little comfort to the Kelly family, I think that they would at least be comforted to know that no other family will have to face the same challenge.
No, the Departmental Solicitor's Office provides advice and guidance to all Ministers on legal matters and sits in the Department of Finance. It provides us with legal guidance and advice as we proceed through such cases. It is very important to remember that there are individuals who work through what are highly challenging and highly sensitive decisions, often in short time frames and with considerable pressure applied to them. We need to allow the review to take its course and identify where the failings are. If those failings are in my Department, I will take responsibility for them and deal with the individual circumstances. However, it would be unwise for us to play pass the parcel with blame. I said last week that, when the decision was made by the judge, he was entirely within his rights to make that decision and that he perhaps applied a different lens to the decision than colleagues in the Prison Service would have done. I stand by that comment today. It is important that all of us in the justice system — and, indeed, all of us in the House — recognise how sensitive, challenging and finely balanced such decisions are.
I cannot answer that question because I only have DSO's response, which said that the failure to communicate was a procedural failing on its part. I grant everyone that it is an unusual set of circumstances; it is also an unusual set of circumstances in a highly controversial and sensitive case, and I understand that. However, it is one of the reasons why I believe that a fully independent review of all the various stages of the case is absolutely necessary to establish how we move forward in a way that ensures such an instance will not be repeated, because most people want that reassurance. Last week, I said that we would look again and review the basis on which we advise the courts on those issues, and if our robustness and clarity are found wanting, we will deal with it. However, given the communication issue between those in the courtroom and those waiting to hear about the litigation, it needs to go further than that and look at the wider issues, which is why an independent review is proportionate and appropriate.
First, I object to people making claims and impugning my integrity. I accept —
I accept that what I said in the Chamber was based on the information that was available to me at that time, and there is now additional information.
I have already apologised, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I have already apologised, both to the family and to those in the Chamber, over the airwaves, and I am happy to apologise again. There was no intention on my part to mislead the Chamber. I was fully candid about the information that I had at the time. Mr Clark has asked a specific question: why were we not aware of the difference on Tuesday, when the judgement was published, and Friday, when the full transcript was published? It was because the judgement that was published on Tuesday included no reference to referring back to the Prison Service; it did not say that.
It did not say that.
With respect, each Member—
When the judgement came out, it set out the conditions under which Mr Anderson would be released; it did not set out the detail as to whether the Prison Service had been afforded an opportunity to review its position. I made that clear when I came to the House last Tuesday. On Friday, the full transcript of proceedings was made available, and, at that point, it became obvious that the judge had, in the course of the proceedings, discussed the opportunity for the Prison Service to take the decision again. He read that it had been rejected by the Prison Service. In fact, it had not been referred to the Prison Service to be considered, and that is the critical point in the miscommunication, which I referred to earlier. The Member is desperately trying to make it a party political issue, and that is unfortunate.
The reality is that, unlike others, if I misspeak in the House or am provided with information that is less than 100% accurate, I return immediately to correct the record, as you should. There are others, frankly, who make all sorts of wild allegations, including during the questions today, who never correct the record or apologise for anything.
First of all, I did not blame anyone; in fact, I —
To be absolutely clear — it would be helpful if I could answer the questions, as opposed to being bombarded with more of them — I did not blame anyone. I am on record throughout last week as saying that it is not about apportioning blame. To say that I came here today not recognising the seriousness of the issue is also false. The statement does not read simply like bureaucracy; in fact, it starts with recognition of the pain that was caused to the Kelly family. That is an untruth being spoken in the Chamber: will that be apologised for? I suspect not. I have apologised in the House today, and I have said that I would never willingly mislead the Chamber or lack candour in my dealings with the Chamber. I caution those who continue to insinuate that I would, because there are plenty of times when the things that they say do not stand scrutiny, yet they do not return to the Chamber. The truth of the matter is that we have a dangerous person at large. He is a danger to the public and to himself. The PSNI is now following various lines of inquiry, and it is doing its best to ensure that he is returned to custody, which is where he belongs and where, the Prison Service believed, he should have been all along. In answer to Mr Clarke's question, I said last week that initiating a full review would be disproportionate, but, in answer to Mr Burrows's question, I undertook that I would be willing to review the information that was provided to the courts. In doing that job, some of the rest of this has become apparent, which is why I am now saying that, in light of the additional information, a review is proportionate and appropriate.
Changes will be made. For example, there will be more checking of the information that is sent to courts in such cases to ensure that there are no typographical errors or mistakes in the information provided. That is a basic thing. At the same time as that review was going on, a review of this person's brother also took place, and it was not overturned on appeal. Therefore, there is clearly a qualitative difference in the information that was provided to the courts in that case. That is the starting point for what we need to do. I do not see the independent review as being lengthy and protracted. I want it returned to me at speed with recommendations on how to take it forward. I also want to ensure that I have all the facts before I make decisions. Unfortunately, too many people are willing to reach their conclusions before the review has started. I want to give the review the opportunity to reach those conclusions. Where change is necessary, we will make that change. Where accountability is required, that accountability will not be found wanting.
First of all, we do not preside over no-go areas in Northern Ireland. We must, however, defend the article 2 rights of all those who work in the Department. Article 2 is the right to life. I will not send prison officers into danger, where they are unable to protect themselves and where they could, in fact, place the public in greater danger. The advice that we receive about the security situation is clear, and we follow that advice. I am sure that the Member is not suggesting that I send prison officers into areas where they might find themselves under attack or lose their lives. We do not do that routinely with our Prison Service, nor would it be appropriate to do so. What we do is done under the advice of the Police Service. The issue of civilian chaperones needs to be looked at, and I have said that it will form part of the review. There are circumstances in which members of the community who are of standing will find somebody handed over to their recognisance in order for them, for example, to visit a dying relative or go to a family funeral. Often, that person will be somebody of standing — an elected representative, a pastor or a minister of faith — who is a trustworthy and upstanding person. That has been the case and is always an option available to the judge. However, it was not my Department or Prison Service that recommended that Gary Anderson be released on the recognisance of his uncle — a family member — nor would they have done so, because their conclusion was that it was not safe to release him in the first place. I am willing to look at the issue of civilian chaperones because I understand the concerns that people have rightly raised. It needs to be looked at. However, we also have a duty, which some Members of the House are not interested in, to those who are in the prison system to treat them fairly and with respect. When they seek to exercise their legal rights, including their right to apply for and seek compassionate temporary release in certain circumstances, we have a duty to consider it. If it is appealed, the courts have a duty to review it and the right to make those judgements. Other Members may disagree with that, but, unfortunately, in my situation, I am bound by the law.
First of all, I say this: objective risk is, unfortunately, in Northern Ireland, attached to locality in many cases. That is a factor in any assessment. The fact that some places are safer to go to than others is a reality of our situation. Every day, I work to change that so that every community is safe. I do not make the decisions about who chaperones prisoners who are released, but, if Prison Service decides to release a dangerous prisoner, its officers will normally accompany that prisoner. Part of its reason for refusal may be circumstances in which its officers are unable to do so. As part of the independent review, I want to provide the clarity that the Member seeks on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for non-police or non-Prison Service personnel to accompany somebody. Clearly, their ability to restrain or restrict the movement of the individual will be much less than that of a fully qualified prison officer or police officer. That normally happens in cases where people are not serious offenders, but the decision on chaperoning in this case was not taken by the Prison Service, so it was not a matter of departmental policy. The decision was taken by the judiciary, which is able to take a decision in its own right and without regard to any policy that I might have.
3,892 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.