Debate contribution: Prisoner Release Victim Information Scheme

Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on 4 November 2025.

MLA

Mrs Naomi Long

Party at the time

Alliance Party

Date

4 November 2025

Type

Debate contribution (made as a minister)

Business

Question for Urgent Oral Answer

Heading

Prisoner Release Victim Information Scheme

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 5216697

Read the official Assembly record

Text

On the first of those questions, of course it is of great concern to the Department, and particularly to the Prison Service, when an event such as that occurs. The administrative error that was the cause in that case has been identified and rectified. Further, though, as I said, a review is ongoing of all similar cases to identify whether there are other comparable administratively mishandled issues in the system. To date, none has been identified. However, that does not preclude the fact that some may be found. If so, those will also be rectified. The wider review on pre-release testing is to try to ensure that the risk of those who are being tested pre-release is properly managed. The reason why people are released first on short periods of accompanied release, then on short periods of unaccompanied release and then on longer periods of unaccompanied release is precisely to test their ability to rehabilitate safely into the community. All those periods of pre-release testing come with conditions that have to be adhered to. Those conditions will depend on the individual prisoner and the point of pre-release testing that they are at. If they fail testing, obviously, they will come back into the prison system and will have to be managed. However, all the cases of people being tested pre-release are to ensure that, when they are finally released, which is the decision made by the courts when they were sentenced, they will be released in a way that is safe and at a time when they are ready and not before. Not to release prisoners on pre-release testing and not to undertake that course of action would mean their simply being released automatically at tariff served, and that would not give us a good indication of what the risks that are associated with the release of that prisoner might be.

The rigorous examination that is ongoing is, in the first instance, to ascertain whether there are further errors. It is too early to state whether further errors have occurred, but any that are found will be rectified immediately. People are aware of how the original error occurred, and action has been taken to prevent a recurrence. There is then a further finding on the external review of prisoner release victim information schemes, which will also help to reduce the potential for future errors and ensure that the schemes are victim-centred and trauma-informed, as they are intended to be. As for the wider situation, further planned periods of temporary release for Mr McEntee have been paused. That is to afford the family their legal right to make written representations. As soon as the error came to light, the family were provided with written representation forms to enable them to submit their views on Mr McEntee's temporary release and the potential conditions that may be attached to any pre-release testing. Decisions regarding any further periods of temporary release for Mr McEntee will be fully documented and will explicitly reference the views of the Cawdery family and the consideration and weight given to those views. I will take time at my meeting with the family to explain what has happened and what will happen in the future. Hopefully, that will provide them and other victims and families, and the wider community, with some reassurance.

The Northern Ireland Prison Service is reviewing what further steps can be taken to manage individuals who raise serious concerns during the pre-release testing process. That includes what more can be done to strengthen risk management for those individuals, and also the sanctions that they face if they fail testing. The Prison Service has a duty to prepare prisoners for release, which may be directed by the Parole Commissioners, as soon as they have served the tariff imposed by the judiciary at the point that they were sentenced. However, the commissioners may only direct release if they are satisfied that the individual will no longer present a risk of serious harm to the public. Crucially, pre-release testing helps to provide that evidence, so its benefits are considerable for the wider community. If an individual fails that testing, it is highly unlikely that they will be released at that point, although ultimately that remains a decision for the Parole Commissioners. If there is a failure, testing may also be paused for a short period. While those who fail receive a lot of attention, as do any errors in what is a very sensitive area of criminal justice, we should not lose sight of the fact that the vast majority comply with the rules and the tests. Those people are much less likely to reoffend and create more victims. Therefore, pre-release testing is and will remain an essential part of the rehabilitation process.

793 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:43 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

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

Challenge this classification