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 5216709

Read the official Assembly record

Text

It is too late to include any change of that nature in the sentencing Bill. As Members are aware, that Bill is making progress through the various drafting phases to be introduced this side of Christmas, in all likelihood. However, there are issues with an opt-out system too, in that people may then end up perversely being contacted when they want no further contact, and that is a high risk also. Therefore, there is no single issue that can account entirely for human error, but we can put in place more rigorous procedures to try to minimise those human errors. With respect to the Meehan case — I have to tread very carefully, because the case remains sub judice — it is an extradition case being heard in a different jurisdiction, so there is no ability for us to inform or even to be made aware of the outcome of that extradition case, given that it is between two arms of another Government. However, I have met the family, discussed their concerns and shared with them the work that we are doing. We also, in that regard, sought to provide them with all the information that is available to us regarding the progress of Meehan's case. However, you will understand that we are not necessarily apprised of the outcome of extradition cases, given the modalities that are engaged in such cases.

Anyone who is unlawfully at large from prison is committing an offence and is automatically reported to the PSNI. There will then be a manhunt for that individual, if they are unlawfully at large. In most cases, those who breach their pre-release testing conditions will either be unlawfully at large for a very short period, often a matter of hours, or it will be to do with their conduct while they were on release during that period. That may be detected on their return to prison — for example, if they have been drinking alcohol or taking drugs. It is very important that we recognise that many victims do not want to hear anything further about the perpetrator in their case. It is a very sensitive issue, and not all victims want to receive or, indeed, welcome receipt of updates on the progress of the case of the individual who has been charged. I did not say that it was not possible to introduce an opt-out scheme. I said that it would be impossible to do so ahead of the introduction of the Bill in the autumn, because it would require us to go to consultation, to engage with victims organisations and to restructure the PRVIS system, as well as the other systems that are in place with other agencies, including probation. Therefore, we could not do that in this mandate. However, we could give consideration to that as part of the wider sentencing review that is happening in parallel with the sentencing Bill. That will hopefully pick up areas that Members might identify during the sentencing Bill process but that need further policy development. As I said, at the moment, the issue for me is not about whether it is an opt-in or opt-out scheme but about ensuring that people's decisions to opt in or opt out are properly recorded on the system and are respected when a decision is made to release an individual from custody, whether permanently or temporarily.

I am aware that an inquiry followed those murders, and it is fair to say that, before anyone is released for pre-release testing, their mental health condition has to be stable and well managed and they will only be released if those issues are being addressed. If someone is, for example, going through a period of instability, they will not be released for pre-release testing and will not reach the point of release in that process. The Member refers to the fact that there were 13 incidents. To be clear, what happened simply was that, as a result of adding an additional family member to the system, all family members on the system were deleted from the system and were not attached to the individual prisoner. Instead of having three family members rather than two appear on the system, no family members appeared on the system. Their names were in the system, but they were not connected to the particular prisoner, and, as a result of that, each time that individual prisoner was released — on 13 different occasions — no one was notified. It was not 13 different administrative errors; it was a single error in adding an additional person to that individual's case that led to the 13 releases without them being notified. As I said, we have now suspended all further pre-release testing, and we will meet the family to ensure that, before pre-release testing recommences, as it must, their witness report statements will be available and they will have an opportunity to make witness and victim representations to the system, as should have been the case on each occasion.

He was not allowed to enter the Portadown area while he was on pre-release testing.

I am not sure whether the Member was here when I said this in answer to an earlier question, but there was a single administrative error. There were not multiple mistakes; there was a single error. Due to that single error, the family's connection with the prisoner on the system was deleted. That was the single error. People are held to account when they make mistakes, but it depends on what the Member means. If he is asking me whether heads will roll, while that might satisfy some people, I do not think that that is how we should deal with staff who are operating a system that is under the level of pressure that our prison system is under. We need to ensure that people are adequately trained and properly supported and that we have a full complement of people working in the prison system in order to ensure that such errors do not happen in future, insofar as anyone can prevent human error. On the issue of how a murderer can be released four times unaccompanied, I want to be clear that we are talking about someone who has served the tariff on their sentence. A judge made a decision that, at the point of tariff, provided that they passed a number of tests, they were free to be released on licence into the community. We could either do that automatically, in which case that person would always be unaccompanied without any testing, or we could go through a process of pre-release testing, as we do in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, whereby we first release people accompanied and then, for short periods, release them unaccompanied, which is what happened in this case. That is the basic way in which pre-release testing works. Yes, people who have committed heinous crimes and have served the tariff on their sentences will be tested to see whether they are ready to be rehabilitated and are capable of moving back into the community. Failure to meet the requirements of pre-release testing will lead to it not happening. Those people will then be referred through the testing system. The alternative is that we simply open the prison door and let people go when they have served their tariff.

1,226 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:45 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