 |
answer text |
<p> </p><p>The information provided in my written answer of 1 May 2014 (Official Report,
Column 762W) was based on information held by my Department. I first became aware
of the issue of missing files while preparing to answer that question. I directed
that a review take place, along with other relevant Departments, of the historical
records relating to RPMs during the period 1987 to 1997. This is ongoing.</p><p>Records
indicate that the vast majority of uses of the RPM referred to in my answer of 1 May
did not relate to terrorist offences. Historically, the RPM was used to remit sentences
of individuals before statutory means existed to do so. This included releasing individuals
from prison for compassionate reasons (e.g. those who were terminally ill), individuals
who assisted the police and prosecuting authorities (now provided for by the Serious
Organised Crime and Police Act 2005), or to correct errors in calculating release
dates. Further information on the general operation of the RPM can be found in the
Ministry of Justice's “Review of the Executive Royal Prerogative Powers: Final Report”,
published in October 2009.</p><p>In a written answer to the Member for North West
Norfolk on 17 March 2014 (Official Report, Column 368W), I repeated an answer given
on 20 March 2003 by the then-Secretary for State for Northern Ireland to the Member
for Lagan Valley (Official Report, Column 895W) – namely that 18 individuals had been
granted the RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 1998. Given the RPM has not
been used since 2002 and has not been used by this Government, the answer given was
the same as the 2003 one. However, early findings from the review of files have indicated
that at least one of these cases did not relate to a terrorist offence and in one
other case the records do not indicate whether or not the offence was terrorism related.</p><p>In
relation to the remaining 16 uses of the RPM between 2000 and 2002 (which did concern
terrorist offences), I understand that previous Secretaries of State for Northern
Ireland used the RPM in relation to individuals who for technical reasons fell outside
of the letter of the Early Release Scheme, to shorten (i.e. not waive or remove) sentences
in order that individuals fell within what I understand the then-Government saw as
the spirit of the Scheme.</p><p>In other words, the RPM was used to correct what the
last Government viewed as discrepancies between the letter and the intention of the
Belfast Agreement and the subsequent Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act – that for a
certain category of terrorist offences, offenders could be released after serving
two years of their sentences.</p><p>The reasons for exercising the RPM in the 16 terrorism-related
cases are summarised as follows:</p><p>· to correct an anomaly in the treatment of
an offender convicted of the same offence(s) and given the same sentence as co-defendants
but who would otherwise have served longer in prison;</p><p>· to release prisoners
who would have been eligible for early release under the Belfast Agreement had they
not transferred to a different jurisdiction;</p><p>· to release prisoners who would
have been eligible to be released under the Belfast Agreement had they not served
sentences outside the jurisdiction having been convicted extraterritorially, or;</p><p>·
to release prisoners who would have been eligible to be released under the Belfast
Agreement had their offences (which subsequently became scheduled offences) been scheduled
at the time they were committed.</p><p>The names of the 16 individuals granted the
RPM in relation to terrorist offences since 2000 are currently being considered as
part of an ongoing court case in Northern Ireland.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>
</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p>
|
|
