Dick Spring
Ceist:13 Mr. Spring asked the Minister for Justice when he expects to have legislation ready on the question of guilty but insane; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Guilty but Insane Court Verdicts.
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:32 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice the number of cases where persons were detained in hospitals in the State as a result of guilty but insane verdicts by the courts; the number of cases of such persons which have been referred to the three member committee; when it is intended to introduce the long promised amending legislation in this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 32 together.
Nineteen persons are at present detained in the Central Mental Hospital as a result of guilty but insane verdicts. Applications for the release of two of these persons were referred to the advisory committee established by me to advise on such cases. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the committee in respect of both of these cases.
As regards the question of legislation, I have already announced my intention to introduce legislation with a view to amending the law in relation to criminal insanity. This commitment has been reaffirmed in the Programme for Government 1989-1993. The legislation will be brought before the Oireachtas as soon as possible.
Would the Minister accept that the current stopgap arrangement is not a satisfactory way in which to deal with these matters? Would he advise the House whether the legislation, when it comes before the House, will provide for these issues to be determined by a court or a committee sitting in public where all parties concerned can be represented and the decisions arrived at in open forum?
The Deputy will appreciate from the replies I gave earlier that I cannot divulge specific details of proposed legislation at this stage. However, I can say that certain areas are being examined in the context of the legislation. These include the procedures for determining the release of guilty but insane persons as well as the 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 the right of insanity, and the possibility of introducing the concept of guilty but with diminished responsibility.
I accept that legislation is the ideal solution to this. However, the courts had decided in relation to two cases and I felt that it was far preferable that I would have the benefit of some qualified and independent advice in making a judgment as to the release or continued detention of applicants. With that in mind I appointed an advisory committee and I want to take the opportunity in the House of commending them and thanking them for the work they have carried out on behalf of the Government and the people. The committee comprises Mr. John Hedigan, a distinguished senior counsel who acts as chairman, Dr. John Owens the chief psychiatrist of St. Davnett's Hospital in Monaghan and Dr. Michael Loftus, a general medical practitioner.
Again, to get the best possible advice the Government, on my recommendation, decided on the terms of reference under which the committee are acting. In the absence of the legislation it is important that they operate effectively, and I think the terms of reference are broad enough. Let me remind the House that the terms of reference of the committee are to advise the Minister for Justice whether or not the applicant is suffering from any mental disorder warranting his continued detention in the public and private interest, including the question of whether he would be a potential danger to any member of the public if released and, having regard to any relevant information, material, or submissions as may be tendered to or come to the notice of the committee, including any information, material or submissions tendered by or on behalf of the applicant. In one case the committee have recommended to me, and through me to the Government, that one of the applicants should be detained. I accepted that. In the other case they recommended release and I fully accepted that as well.
Is the Minister aware of the great deal of public unrest in relation to some of these cases where individuals were found to be guilty but insane, but insane at the time of committing the offence and sane at the time of the trial? Would the Minister agree that operating under legislation dating back to 1883 — I think it is the Trial of Lunatics Act — is most unsatisfactory? Can the Minister give some comfort to the victims of crime, the relatives who suffered a great deal, particularly in relation to the Donegal case, that legislation will be amended and that those who are found to be guilty but insane, instead of being convicted on a murder charge could at least be convicted on a manslaughter charge? Would the Minister agree that if that were to happen it would then be a matter for the courts to impose a sentence as distinct from asking the Minister or the Government of the day to make a decision whether somebody should be released from the Central Mental Hospital where they should never have been in the first place? Would he agree that it is very difficult to stand over a situation where somebody is committed to the Central Mental Hospital although the senior psychiatrist in that hospital has given evidence to the effect that the person is sane at the time that the court is sending the person there?
I fully accept that the legislation needs to be updated. That is why I am preparing legislation to introduce in this House. I fully accept that it is the deeply and strongly held view on all sides of the House that the legislation should be changed. I hope for a speedy passage of the legislation when I bring it forward. I do share the Deputy's concern about the natural worries and the natural feelings of families of people who have lost loved ones as a result of a crime. That is why I am bringing forward amending legislation.
The Minister has said that there are 19 people currently in detention as a result of guilty but insane verdicts. What is the motor mechanism of cases being brought before the committee? Can an applicant, of his or her own motion, initiate a reconsideration by the Committee or is it done by reference to the courts or the Minister exclusively?
The other question I want to ask is in regard to the Henchy committee report which has been before the Government since 1988. I do not say that as a criticism of the present Minister but could he indicate in word or in a sentence why that report has never been acted upon to date?
The relevant recommendations of the Henchy committee report are being fully considered in the context of the legislation to amend the law on criminal insanity.
Why has this not been done before?
Ask my predecessors. I am trying to do it. The cases that have been brought forward were brought forward as a result of court proceedings and it was on that basis that I asked the committee to consider them.
Will the Minister agree that there is also widespread public concern that the verdict of guilty but insane may be brought in wrongly in some court cases? Would the Minister agree that psychiatrists asked to give evidence in such court cases have differed and are engaging in what can be best described at retrospective rationalisations and that the determination as to whether someone was insane at the time of a crime who is clearly sane at the time of the court case may very much depend on what the accused tells the psychiatrist as much as on what is seen at the time? Would the Minister, in the context of such legislation, look at the possibility of putting in place a mechanism whereby a group of two or three psychiatrists have to give evidence to a court with regard to the sanity of someone at the time of the commission of a crime where it is alleged that there is a possibility that they were insane? Would the Minister finally agree that it is not satisfactory that such cases be determined simply on the basis of evidence given by one psychiatrist who projects possible sanity and another who projects possible insanity and the matter then being left to a jury or, in certain cases, to a judge alone to determine? There is a particular difficulty in this area and there is a general public concern that people are evading proper convictions for murder and manslaughter by bringing in this type of verdict.
The points raised by the Deputy again emphasise the need for the change in the law that is being brought about, and I take note of what the Deputy has said in the context of the preparation of the legislation.