Deputy Pat McCartan gave me notice of his intention to raise the implications of the judgment of the Supreme Court given on 12 February in the Gallagher case, and the urgent need for the Government to act as a result of that decision.
Adjournment Debate. - Supreme Court Judgment in Gallagher Case.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity of raising this very important, urgent and serious issue in the House tonight. I also thank the Minister of State at the Department of Justice for taking the time to listen to what I have to say. This House will be well aware that on 18 September 1988 John Gallagher took the life of his former girlfriend and her mother in the grounds of Sligo General Hospital. At his subsequent trial he pleaded not guilty to the charges by reason of insanity, and that plea was sustained at an eventual hearing before a jury.
Shortly after his committal to the Central Mental Hospital, where I understand he is being detained, Mr. Gallagher's lawyers began a process of applying to the courts to have his release secured. That process of application led ultimately to the recent decision of the Supreme Court, delivered only a few days ago, that the matter of his eventual release will be decided by the Minister in consultation at Government.
The process is no longer sub judice and therefore affords this House an opportunity to have the views of the court heard on the matter. In addition, it affords the Minister an opportunity to act in the way he promised in answer to questions from The Workers' Party in this House in regard to the issue as it unfolded in the Central Criminal Court and elsewhere. It is now a matter of urgency that the Minister and the Government bring in legislation to update the law.
What is curious about this issue is that the whole matter has been already addressed by a Government appointed committee under the chairmanship of former Supreme Court Judge Henchy who reported as long ago as November 1978 — the report was lodged in the library in 1980. Judge Henchy looked at this and many other matters dealing with the mentally ill which come before the courts. He even went as far as to draft a Bill, and any Government since then could have presented it to this House where, I have no doubt, it would have received overwhelming and immediate support.
It is a remarkable condemnation of this House that that report has sat on the shelves for so long and that the legal quagmire that the Government now find themselves in has been allowed to generate when the solutions were there. The Henchy report recommended that where a person was found not guilty by reason of mental disorder — it recommended a change of the ridiculous formula used in our courts of guilty but insane — the person would be assessed and admitted to hospital if that was the appropriate action to take. It also recommended that it would be a matter for the courts subsequently to decide whether and when the person should be released, bearing in mind not just the sanity of the person, as is currently the position, but also whether it is safe in all the circumstances to allow him to be released. That is a very important consideration.
I want to put on the record of the House that there would be very major repercussions not only for John Gallagher but for the family of the victims should he be released at an early stage. None of us should be hesitant about making that point. It is only due to the sensible ruling of the Supreme Court that that gentleman will be kept longer in custody and, I hope, until such time as the Government have an opportunity to look at the report. They should then act without delay. There can be no reason for dallying on this urgent and important matter.
I would like to begin by reminding the House of a statement which the Minister for Justice issued yesterday afternoon shortly after the decision of the Supreme Court in DPP v Gallagher became known. The statement was as follows:
The implications of this judgment will be examined by my Department as a matter of urgency.
Legislation is at an advanced stage of preparation to amend the law relating to criminal insanity and will be introduced as soon as possible.
We are studying the Supreme Court judgment in detail and taking advice as to its full implications. While I will be glad to note any observation which Deputy McCartan or any other Member of the House may wish to offer on the case, it would obviously be inappropriate for me, or the Minister for Justice who will have the responsibility of dealing with the outcome of the case, to make any comment pending completion of the detailed examination which is under way.
I am particularly conscious of the fact that while the judgment may be seen as one which carries general implications as regards the manner in which the detention of persons held under section 2 (2) of the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, is to be managed, it must also be borne in mind that the judgment refers to what the Supreme Court has found to be the lawful detention of a named individual. It would be very wrong for me to engage in any discussion on the individual case or to say anything which might be seen as carrying implications for the future management of a named individual's detention.
While it is not easy to avoid an overlap between the general and the particular in this instance, I trust that the House will appreciate the importance for me, as Minister of State, the Minister and indeed for the House generally, of maintaining this distinction.
With regard to suggestions that have been made to the effect that the general law in this area should be amended, I can say that even prior to the decision of the Supreme Court it had been decided to introduce legislation with a view to amending the law in relation to criminal insanity.
Work on the preparation of the legislation is already at an advanced stage in the Department of Justice. The House will appreciate that at this stage I am not in a position to reveal specific details of the proposed legislation.
However, I can say that certain issues are being examined in the context of the legislation. These include provisions about fitness to plead at a criminal trial, a possible change in the verdict of "guilty but insane", the introduction of a right of appeal against such verdicts, the definition of criminal insanity, the possibility of introducing the concept of "guilty but with diminished responsibility" and the procedures for determining the release of "guilty but insane" persons.
There have been a number of reports both here and in the United Kingdom on the question of criminal insanity. The third interim report of the inter-departmental committee on mentally ill and maladjusted persons, often referred to as the Henchy Committee, is one of the most recent and contains many detailed recommendations. The issues in question also have been the subject of some considerable debate in the United States as a result of the Hinckley case. We have, therefore, the benefit of a considerable body of research and recommendations to enable us to come to proper and informed conclusions, although there seems to be no universally agreed solution in other jurisdictions to the problems in question.
As soon as the legislation has been finalised it will be introduced in the normal way.