In this piece, Dr Sophie van der Valk summarises the key findings and practical implications of her recent book, Overseeing Rights in Prison: The Irish Experience of Human Rights Protection in Prisons, published in 2025 by Routledge.

In response, Dr Orla Gallagher from the Irish Prison Service (IPS) reflects on the study’s findings and discusses some recent and possible future developments in the IPS and Irish prison oversight.

This series is published in collaboration with the CORD Partnership.

Dr Sophie van der Valk

Prisoners’ rights are protected internationally through various human rights mechanisms. As part of rights protection, inspection, monitoring and complaint systems are proposed by the UN and the Council of Europe (CoE). The CoE European Prison Rules and the UN Mandela Rules prescribe a tripartite model of rights protection to both respond to rights violations and identify potential areas for improvement. This preventative and responsive approach includes inspection and monitoring of places of detention, including prisons, a complaints system and access to the courts for cases concerning treatment in prison.

As part of an ERC funded project (PRILA) based at Trinity College Dublin, I explored the prisoner experience of this rights protection in Ireland. The findings from this study are set out in a recently published book with Routledge entitled Overseeing Rights in Prison: The Irish Experience of Human Rights Protection in Prisons. Despite a long history of rights protection internationally and in Ireland, little is known about how the ultimate beneficiaries experience interactions with these bodies. The study involved semi-structured interviews and surveys with people in custody across the Irish prison system.

Rights protection in Ireland

Ireland has made efforts to replicate the tripartite model set out in the international guidelines through the introduction of a written prisoner complaints system in 2013 (S.I. No. 11/2013). Prior to this people in prison could make complaints directly to the Governor, Director General, Minister of Justice and Prison Visiting Committees. These options are still available since the introduction of the new system. 

Alongside prisoner complaints, rights protection also involves inspection and monitoring of prison conditions by both domestic and international bodies. In Ireland, Visiting Committees have a long history of carrying out visits to prisons and writing reports on their findings. Since 2007, Ireland has also had an Office of the Inspector of Prisons (OIP) on a statutory basis. Prior to this, the office was in existence for a number of years on a non-statutory basis. The OIP can visit all prisons in Ireland, writes specific prison, thematic and annual reports on conditions in Irish prisons. Ireland is also subject to visits from the CoE Committee for the Prevention of Torture and, following the forthcoming ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, will be subject to visits from the UN Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture. 

Finally, people in prison can bring, and in some cases have successfully brought, cases to the Irish courts on their treatment in prison. 

Experiencing rights protection

Despite the existence of rights-protecting bodies in Irish prisons, the research found that many people in prison were unaware of their rights in general, as well as the rights-protecting bodies. They were most likely to be aware of the Visiting Committees due to their frequency of visits. However, some felt that they were powerless and easily led by the prison authorities to “nicer” parts of the prison. 

The complaints system was not held in high esteem by those in prison and the research found that people who used the system had increasingly negative attitudes towards it. This is concerning as an ineffective complaint system can drive frustration and powerless among an already vulnerable population. A key point of reform for the Irish prisoner complaint system is the introduction of an independent body for appeals. The possibility of the Ombudsman taking on this role was discussed with prisoners and was viewed as a positive step in improving the system. However, some concerns were raised about how to access the Ombudsman, and the ability to protect prisoners from potential reprisals. Reprisals were in general of high concern when it came to both using the complaint system or seeking to access the courts in relation to treatment in prison. 

Improving rights protection

A key component of the international framework for prisoner complaints is an independent appeals mechanism. This is currently missing from the Irish system and a cause for concern amongst those seeking to use the system. Addressing this would play a role in improving rights protection through the complaint system. This needs to be done alongside building trust in rights protecting mechanisms through widespread information about the systems and engaging directly with those in prison. In the absence of clear and concise information on rights and what rights-protecting bodies can do for those in prison, it can be hard for those in prison to decide whether to engage, as well as creating false expectations about what different bodies do and how they carry out their work. 

Dr Orla Gallagher, Research Development and Evaluation Manager, Irish Prison Service

The Office of the Inspector of Prisons (OIP) has observed that “when a State deprives people of their liberty it assumes a heightened obligation to protect their human rights”. The protection of prisoners’ human rights is central to the work of the Irish Prison Service (IPS), and is notably reflected in the IPS mission statement: “providing safe and secure custody, dignity of care and rehabilitation to prisoners for safer communities”. Integrity is one of the core values of the IPS, with an understanding that “we must always have the courage to do the right thing, the decent thing, even when no one else is watching”. 

A number of international and national, and external and internal, mechanisms to ensure the protection of human rights in the IPS have been outlined above. Particularly noteworthy is the work of the OIP and Prison Visiting Committees (PVCs), as well as the IPS prisoner complaints process. The latter is managed by the Complaints Unit in the Operations Directorate, in line with the Prisoner Complaints Policy. The aims of the policy are to ensure that all investigations of prisoner complaints are compliant, timely and robust, and dealt with in confidence and with the assurance of procedural fairness. 

While specific procedures vary by complaint category, the general approach aims to be person-centred and needs-driven (e.g. written and oral complaint formats, writing assistance, provision of translators). Such an approach is also promoted in the work of PVCs and the OIP. For example, in the 2023 review of PVCs people in prison were engaged for their experiences and perspectives, and the recruitment of Experts by Experience to PVCs was advocated. People in prison were also engaged in the development of the 2024 Framework for Inspection of Prisons in Ireland, while the OIP aim to develop accessible materials for prisoners in line with National Adult Literacy Agency (NALA) standards.

It is important to reflect on whether the above person-centred and needs-driven approaches are sufficient, and to consider ways in which they could be enhanced in policy and practice. The findings of the PRILA study presented above suggest two main shortfalls in this area. The first is a lack of awareness of, education on, and access to the various mechanisms which aim to enhance prisoners’ human rights protections. In the above study, people in prison were often unaware of their human rights and how to access the bodies set up to protect these. The development of accessible materials (e.g. OIP resources) and processes (e.g. IPS assistance with written complaints) is admirable. Accessibility could be furthered by thinking creatively about alternative non-written formats (e.g. podcasts, graphics, discussion circles), considering the bespoke needs of ethnic minorities (e.g. non-English speaking, cultural barriers) and co-creating materials with the prison population. The use of peer messaging (e.g. PVC engagement with people in prison via the Irish Red Cross) is also welcome. Indeed, the IPS have recently progressed a number of initiatives to embed lived experience voices within the organisation, including the implementation of Expert by Experience roles. For such initiatives to be truly effective, and align with the ethos of human rights protections, they must be non-tokenistic, equitable and consistent, with a genuine commitment towards actioning insights gained from lived experience perspectives. 

The second shortfall of note is the powerlessness that is deeply felt in all environments where people are deprived of their liberty, including prisons. Appeal processes are outlined in the Prisoner Complaint Policy, which also emphasises that complaint investigation reports cannot form the basis for imposing any disciplinary sanctions, for both people in prison and officers. However, the PRILA study uncovered both the lack of trust and fear of repercussion that is felt by prisoners in relation to the complaints process, as well as external mechanisms. While the question of how to empower people in prison and build trust is not an easy one to answer, any efforts to do so should prioritise meaningful engagement with those at the heart of this issue – people in custody.

A move towards an external complaints system managed by the Ombudsman is another possible avenue, as suggested by the PRILA study and the subject of much engagement between the OIP and the IPS in recent years. However, it is noteworthy that while people in prison in the PRILA study felt positively about this, they were also sceptical. This is perhaps unsurprising when we consider the adverse experiences evident in the life stories of many people in prison, which often feature deprived environments and authority figures, and can become entangled with their experiences within and beyond the IPS. However, efforts to empower people in prison and build trust will only be successful if their human rights are genuinely being protected by the institution and personnel charged with doing so. A review of potential gaps between the Prisoner Complaints Policy and operational practice in the IPS could be beneficial, as well as training and support for IPS staff in this area. Just as the lived experiences of people in orison are central to this issue, an openness towards staff perspectives and concerns is important. 

As advised in the PRILA study, when prisoners’ human rights are not protected, frustrations can arise, which could create additional challenges for the IPS. This is particularly pertinent within the current context of an overcrowded prison system. The OIP have quite rightly stated that “overcrowding cannot, and must not, be used as an excuse for prisoners to continue to be held in the inhuman and degrading conditions that have been found by the CPT, and by the Inspectorate”. At the same time, this is the reality that currently dominates the prison environment, and presents a real challenge for the IPS and its staff in protecting prisoners’ human rights. Efforts to support staff in the area of prisoner human rights should be cognisant of this context. Additionally, prisons do not operate in isolation, and overcrowding solutions, as well as mechanisms to enhance human rights protections, which consider the whole criminal justice system are essential.

• Previous articles from this series can be found here.