I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for allowing me bring this matter to the attention of the Minister. On the evening of 15 January 1997, an accident took place on the Bansha road outside Tipperary town in which the driver of one of the cars, a man from Knocklong, County Limerick, was killed and another passenger seriously injured. There was ample evidence that the driver of the other car was intoxicated. Several witnesses had reported him driving erratically prior to the accident. Subsequently he was charged with dangerous driving causing death. He was also charged with drunk driving and failing to give a sample.
At a court hearing in Tipperary on 2 December 1997, the lawyer for the accused asked for a special inquiry to ascertain if the accused was fit to plead. The inquiry was fixed for 11 December 1997. District Judge Pattwell asked the representatives of the State if an adjournment to 11 December was sufficient to have an independent examination of the accused. The State representative confirmed that this would be so. It transpired, however, that the examination was unable to be completed in this time.
On 11 December, Dr. E.T. Neville, consultant psychiatrist, gave evidence in relation to the accused. She stated that there was evidence of a stroke —there was a lesion of the left upper caudate, there was also cerebral atrophy and there was a moderate degree of hydrocephalous with some perienticular white matter flare indicating white matter disease. Dr. Neville gave her opinion that brain deterioration was 25 per cent. She said it could be more specifically measured by a neuropsychologist. She had written to Dr. McLeavy in Cork but the earliest appointment she could get was in February of 1998.
The judge found that the brain damage was measurable. It was not, however, examined by a person who was qualified to measure it. At this stage the State asked for an adjournment for a full medical assessment. Judge Pattwell stated that on 2 December the State had stated that an adjournment to 11 December was sufficient to have completed the relevant examination and he refused to adjourn the inquiry. The judge said he could not fly against the evidence and determined that the accused was not fit to plead.
The consequence of this is that there is a person at large who is deemed to have 25 per cent brain damage, is incapable of pleading, has allegedly caused the death of a person and serious injury to another, and is untouchable by the law. He is not criminally insane. In fact there can be no finding as to his guilt or otherwise.
I wish to put this anomalous situation on the public record not just because the prosecution arising from the death on 15 January 1997 cannot proceed but also because this person is free from prosecution for whatever harm he might do in the future. The only restriction on him is that the court made an order in early January 1998 that revoked his licence for life. However, sanctions cannot be applied if he breaches the order.
The circumstances giving rise to this loss are not now amenable to court investigation or conviction. Furthermore, the person alleged to be responsible would appear not to be answerable to the law for such actions in the future. This case creates a dangerous precedent which not only allows those who claim brain damage immunity from charges but also creates a situation where there is no responsibility under the law for their future actions.
In this case, J.P. Ryan lost his life, a wife lost her husband, a family lost their father and the community lost a great leader. A sense of sadness and loss will continue for many years.
Surely these circumstances require the attention of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I call on the Minister to carry out a full examination of the facts and, if necessary, change the law to ensure that a similar situation will be properly addressed in the future. The State should be in a position to apply to the court for means to protect the public which might involve some element of restraint in a suitable institution.
