Dan Neville (Limerick West, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002 which we have awaited for some considerable time. Now that it has come, it is welcome. It is required to bring the approach towards criminal insanity and the treatment of people incapable of facing court to answer for deeds done or who were not in command of their faculties when a crime was committed into the 20th and, one hopes, the 21st century. Most of the relevant regulations have been in place since the 1800s.

It is a very difficult area. A person who suffers from a serious psychiatric illness raises questions, especially in the area of criminal responsibility. However, we must all be answerable to society for our actions. There are degrees of responsibility in that area, from being without any responsibility because of a psychiatric condition to being a marginal case with some alleviating factors regarding criminal responsibility when the act occurred. The Bill recognises that capacity. The present verdict of guilty but insane has consequences for a person subject to a special regime. Both society and the person are protected until he or she is no longer a threat to society or to himself or herself. The Bill modernises and reforms the law on clinical insanity and fitness to stand trial.

Psychiatry has changed immensely in the last 100 to 150 years since the basis of the current legislation was introduced. We must recognise the developments in it over the period. I know that the Minister has used the word "insanity" in the Bill. Perhaps he might address why that word has been retained. Some people have expressed concerns that the term "insanity" is still being used. I find it difficult to deal with. Someone who is insane has a serious psychiatric illness. Why do we not say that? "Insanity" has connotations of asylums and words still unfortunately used in law in certain circumstances such as "lunatic". They seriously stigmatise people with a psychiatric illness. There must be some legal reason for continuing to use the word rather than some of the more modern terms for those with a serious mental illness.

A person's inability to understand the difference between guilty and innocent, to instruct his or her counsel, or comprehend what is happening in a trial has serious implications for his or her human rights. The person would be unable to defend himself or herself, advise others on how to do so, reply to questions or relate to what is happening. The new verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity will allow people to be examined under the Mental Health Act 2001. Perhaps I might ask the Minister of State a question in that regard. I am glad that it is he.

See this speech in context