Vol. 549 No. 2
10 Ms Clune asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason for the delay in publishing new legislation to address the issue of insanity and the criminal law; and his views on whether the existing law is unsatisfactory. [4137/02]
59 Mr. McDowell asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if his attention has been drawn to the criticism made by judges in two recent cases regarding the failure to update the law on criminal insanity; when he expects the Bill to be published in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6069/02]
136 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the reason for the delay in publishing new legislation to address the issue of insanity and the criminal law as promised by him on 8 May 1999; and his views on whether the current law is unsatisfactory. [6144/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 59 and 136 together. I am aware of the need to update the law on criminal insanity and a Bill to amend the law in this area is being drafted in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to the Government. As announced in the Government's legislative programme on 29 January 2002, it is expected that the Bill will be published this year. I hope the Bill will be published during the life of the present Dáil.
The Bill is a very complex one and will require very detailed consideration during its passage through the Oireachtas. It will contain extensive provisions dealing with fitness to plead at a criminal trial and a definition of criminal insanity and will also provide for a new verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity to replace the present guilty but insane verdict. The Bill will introduce a new plea of guilty but with diminished responsibility in cases of murder. In addition, it will establish a new review body, the function of which will be to review the cases of persons detained after verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity or findings of unfitness to plead.
Priority attention was given to the Mental Health Bill which has now been enacted. In addition, a very large volume of other priority legislation has had to be processed in my Department and in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, particularly since the terrorist attack on New York last September. I am confident that the Bill will be published within the timeframe I have given.
Will the Minister explain why in May 1999 he announced that he would introduce legislation to change the law in this area when, almost two years later, no Bill has been published? Will he acknowledge that there is a need to give far greater priority to addressing these issues? Is he embarrassed by the fact that in three different murder trials, criticism has been voiced in regard to the Government's failure to being forward this badly needed legislation? Will the Minister acknowledge that there is growing public disquiet and concern at the fact that verdicts of guilty but insane are being brought in in cases in which a more appropriate verdict would probably be manslaughter as a consequence of diminished responsibility?
It is true that the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, is very archaic legislation under which to deal with modern psychiatric conditions. That much goes without saying. It is true that this law needs to be amended and I have promised to do so. One of the difficulties I have had is getting Bills ordered in the House and getting them drafted, given the volume of legislation which has emanated from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. As Deputies Shatter and Howlin should well know, 43 Bills from that Department have been passed by this House, some 42 of which are on the Statute Book. In view of competing priorities, it is difficult from time to time to ensure that certain legislation, which demands priority, receives the level of attention it might deserve. In particular, I point to the legislation required after 11 September and, indeed, to other criminal legislation introduced in the House. I hope we can produce and publish this legislation prior to the end of the current Dáil. Either way, I am assured that the legislation, which is virtually complete, will be published this year.
The Minister now accepts that this is critical and important legislation which he has failed to bring before the House, although he has promised it for years. Does he accept that there is now a loophole in our criminal law that has been identified and criticised by at least two senior High Court judges? Does he accept that the decision at the start of his administration to abolish the separate Department of Equality and Law Reform and merge both Departments with competing demands for legislative time was a disaster for the administration of justice, for which he is responsible, and the advancement of equality and disability issues, for which the Minister of State is responsible?
The situation is quite the contrary, in fact. More legislation has emanated from the equality section of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform than emanated from it during the lifetime of the previous Government.
That is unfair to former Deputy Mervyn Taylor.
I did not accept criticism on the criminal law insanity Bill this afternoon and I will not be criticised about another Bill which has already been enacted. I fully appreciate and accept the courts are critical of the situation and that the law requires reform. We are dealing with an archaic Act. I fully acknowledge that reform is appropriate and that it should have been done before now. I have had great difficulty with the amount of legislation emanating from the Department due to priorities. I am not making excuses, I am merely telling the Deputy the factual position. My heart is in the right place in so far as this legislation is concerned. I would be extremely anxious and even proud to have such legislation put on the Statute Book but it is not likely that will happen in the lifetime of this Government.
Can the Minister confirm – this relates to insanity and criminal law, particularly regarding murder and manslaughter offences – that following an escape which took place two years ago it is clear that should a person found guilty but insane and committed to the Central Mental Hospital be on temporary release or escape from the Central Mental Hospital and leave the jurisdiction, for example, to go to England, there are no arrangements in place to have them returned to this jurisdiction? Will he indicate what discussions, if any, have taken place with the British Government with a view to putting in place arrangements to ensure that should an escape such as previously occurred take place the person will be returned here?
I am aware of the case to which Deputy Shatter refers. His question is specific as opposed to the general question of insanity law to which this question relates. In deference to him, it is true that the Supreme Court has decided that the special verdict of guilty but insane is, in effect, an acquittal and as a result the events as outlined by Deputy Shatter can occur. As the person concerned has not been found guilty of any crime, it is not possible to bring him/her back here. I accept that is a problem. It is one of the reasons a need exists to amend the 1883 Act.
On the point regarding persons being held in mental institutions at the pleasure of the Government, it is and has been the practice for some years now to constitute a committee in relation to a given person. The committee would normally be comprised of a psychiatrist, a general practitioner and, perhaps, a senior counsel who would make recommendations regarding the individual from time to time. That is, however, an administrative procedure. It is satisfactory in so far as it goes but it is not a statutory procedure and so is unsatisfactory from that perspective. It is as much as can be done. In the final analysis I agree fully with Deputies that this law requires change.
Would the Minister agree that there is a need to put in place special arrangements, in particular with the British Government, to address this issue? Can he confirm to the House that should one, two, three, five or six persons, who are patients in the Central Mental Hospital as a result of a verdict of guilty but insane, leave the jurisdiction there is nothing he can do to have them returned?
Question Time has concluded.
There has been a case similar to that outlined by Deputy Shatter. There is a need to change the legislation in regard to that case in an effort to first acknowledge it.
