Fine Gael launched their justice plan, Law and Order and Defence: A safe and secure Ireland on Friday 15 November 2024. The full election manifesto, Securing your future, was published on Sunday 17 November 2024.
Below, IPRT analyses relevant proposals contained in the manifesto. Owing to the wide range of measures relating to crime, sentencing and imprisonment, there may be some issues contained in the manifesto that are not included below. However, IPRT has sought to include the most relevant proposals.
Commitments in ‘Delivering Adequate Prison Capacity’:
The proposal to build additional prison developments at Thornton Hall offers a longer-term response to overcrowding but fails to address its underlying causes or provide extra capacity in the short-term. Expanding prison capacity risks entrenching reliance on imprisonment while diverting resources from more effective solutions. (See more below.) IPRT successfully campaigned against the proposal to build a super prison at Thornton Hall previously, with much research to back up why this would not be a suitable project.
IPRT strongly cautions against a focus on expanding prison capacity. A more effective response would focus on reducing overcrowding through policy measures that address the drivers of imprisonment rather than simply expanding capacity. Ireland should prioritise alternatives to custody that reduce reoffending and invest in services outside of prison, such as mental health, housing, and addiction services. In IPRT’s priorities for election manifestos, we outlined clear actions that can and should be taken to ensure prison is used as a last resort and to safely reduce the number of people in prison, avoiding the need for prison expansion. Again, this response is not an immediate solution and would be years in the making.
See IPRT’s Progress in the Penal System (2022) – Standard 2: Imprisonment as a last resort (p.33)
Adequate staffing is critical to ensuring safe and rehabilitative prison conditions. However, Ireland currently has among the lowest ratios of prisoners per one staff member in the Council of Europe, meaning we have one of the highest levels of staffing relative to our prisoner population. While IPRT supports investment in prison staff, this must be coupled with efforts to reduce the prison population and improve working conditions. An issue repeatedly raised in inspection and monitoring reports is the impact of prison officers being redeployed to support prison escorts.
There is some evidence that electronic monitoring can be effective in respect of people convicted of sex offences when used for a short duration in tandem with other interventions; it must not be viewed as a standalone solution. Its success depends on proportional application, integration with rehabilitative supports, and rigorous oversight. Responsibility for this oversight would also have to be determined. Implementing a tagging programme would require significant investment in training, technology, and support infrastructure. Without adequate resources, the programme risks failure or inefficiency. Furthermore, the use of the sanction for only one cohort of offenders could raise equality and/or safety concerns where someone wearing a tag would be identified as having committed a specific type of offence.
IPRT is concerned about proposals to allow judges to impose minimum prison terms for people sentenced to life sentences. See IPRT’s initial reflections on the recently published General Scheme of the Life Sentences Bill 2024, which has the same aim. Particularly, IPRT is concerned that under current proposals the court would be obliged to specify a recommended minimum custodial term in all cases where a life sentence is imposed.
Instead, IPRT supports an evidence-based approach that relies on individualised sentencing and periodic parole review by the statutory Parole Board, which balances public safety with opportunities for individual rehabilitation.
Having a criminal record can impose significant barriers to securing employment, education, volunteering and even travel. In November, the Department of Justice launched Building Pathways Together: Criminal Justice Reintegration Through Employment Strategy 2025-2027, in conjunction with the Irish Prison Service and the Probation Service, and in consultation with key stakeholders. This is the successor to two previous employment-focused strategies the Department has produced. While implementing the strategy is welcome, legislative barriers remain. The next government should focus on extending spent convictions legislation to support fairer access to employment and remove barriers for people who have moved on from offending behaviour.
See IPRT’s "The Secondary Punishment”: A Scoping Study on Employer Attitudes to Hiring People with Criminal Convictions.
(It is not clear to IPRT whether this unit would be in prison, or an option in a healthcare setting for diversion from prison. However, given its inclusion in the section about delivering prison capacity, IPRT understands this to mean a unit within the prison estate.)
Measures to address the needs of those with severe mental health issues who end up in the criminal justice system are welcome. However, mental health and addiction challenges are more appropriately addressed through diversion and community-based treatment rather than in custodial settings. This is particularly the case for people with higher-level support needs. Any high dependency unit must be implemented as part of a broader strategy to divert vulnerable people away from prison entirely and ensure continuity of care upon release.
IPRT strongly supports the full implementation of the High Level Task Force’s recommendations. These measures represent a critical opportunity to address the root causes of offending and reduce reoffending through early intervention, diversion, and in-prison supports. Sustained investment and ongoing cross-departmental collaboration will be essential to ensure the recommendations are effectively implemented.
See the Final Report of the High Level Task Force to consider the mental health and addiction challenges of those who come into contact with the criminal justice sector.
Other relevant commitments from across other sections:
(Note that a similar commitment is made in two different sections in the manifesto; IPRT is analysing it once.)
This commitment to strengthening legislation and extending the use of community sanction is welcome. The General Scheme of the Community Sanctions Bill was published in 2014. A decade later, the Bill has not yet been published. As recommended recently by the Prison Overcrowding Response Group, any such legislation should retain the emphasis placed on prison as a sanction of last resort. While there are a range of community sanctions, this commitment focuses specifically on ‘unpaid work’, which IPRT understands as referring to community service orders (CSOs). Research recently published by the Department of Justice found that, of the members of the judiciary who participated in the research, CSOs are not currently acting as an alternative to custody as per their policy intention. The research provides conclusions on how this could be addressed, including through resourcing of CSOs so they are available and responsive to the needs of people with multiple difficulties who have offended persistently. It also recommends resourcing data and analysis of longer-term outcomes of those subject to CSOs, awareness raising and information sharing about the operation of CSOs with the judiciary, as well as a public information campaign in this area.
The development of sentencing guidelines is crucial to achieving greater consistency, fairness, and proportionality in sentencing. However, IPRT emphasises that the Judicial Council must remain independent in designing and implementing these guidelines, free from political influence. Any new ministerial power must be carefully defined to protect the separation of powers and judicial independence. Proper resourcing for the Sentencing Guidelines and Information Committee is also critical to ensure guidelines are developed based on robust evidence and international best practices.
IPRT strongly supports strengthening judicial training, which can enhance judicial understanding of emerging legal and societal issues, such as sentencing alternatives, mental health, addiction, and restorative justice. Continuous professional development for judges is essential for ensuring that decisions are informed, fair, and aligned with best practices. However, the Judicial Studies Committee of the Judicial Council has been overseeing the education and training since 2020. It is unclear how this new institute would operate.
IPRT welcomes the commitment to tackling delays in the criminal justice system, as prolonged trials and case backlogs negatively impact victims, defendants, and the broader justice process. A transparent and comprehensive review should focus on key bottlenecks, including delays in pre-trial detention and access to legal representation. It is essential that the action plan prioritises the needs of marginalised groups, particularly those with limited resources, and ensures that efficiency does not come at the cost of fairness or due process. Adequate resourcing and stakeholder engagement will be critical to the success of this initiative.
While protecting retail workers is a laudable aim, IPRT emphasises the need for proportionate responses to such offending. Introducing a new specific offence may overlap with existing laws, potentially complicating enforcement rather than enhancing it. A more effective approach may involve ensuring consistent application of existing assault laws and expanding restorative justice options to repair harm done to victims and communities.
IPRT urges caution in implementing measures that could disproportionately increase pre-trial detention. Instead, enhanced victim protection can be achieved by investing in bail support/supervision programmes to enhance compliance with bail conditions and ensuring effective monitoring of bail conditions. A focus on evidence-based approaches to bail reform is critical to balancing victim protection with the presumption of innocence.
IPRT welcomes this proposal, as children affected by legal proceedings – including those impacted by parental imprisonment – should have their voices heard and their best interests prioritised. Currently there is no mechanism for children to contribute to proceedings when their parent may be sentenced to custody. This will have a profound impact on their lives, so it is important that this group of children are specifically included in the scope of this scheme. Ensuring adequate resourcing and quality standards for these reports is essential for achieving meaningful participation by children in decisions that impact their lives.
See IPRT’s Piecing it Together: Supporting Children and Families with a Family Member in Prison in Ireland.
For IPRT’s 10 Priority Proposals for General Election Manifestos 2024, click here.
Respect for rights in the penal system with prison as a last resort.