Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I have watched this issue with some interest. I am particularly delighted that Deputy Brian Lenihan, an eminent legal eagle, is present and that the relevant Department is well represented by legal luminaries. Deputy Deenihan referred to a number of high profile cases in recent years. The Minister spoke on 12 December 2002 of the imminence of this Bill. I hope other legislation he suggests is introduced with a little more rapidity than this measure.

Undoubtedly, an updating of the legislation in this area is required. It is overdue. However, intriguing questions arise with these changes. The Minister referred to fitness to plead and the statutory definition of criminal insanity. A new verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" is to replace the present verdict of "guilty but insane". In one of the high profile cases much legal argument took place as to whether the person who committed the murder or misdeed was insane at the time it was committed but was perfectly sane beforehand and afterwards. I read the various arguments with interest. I accept that the defendant has a right to make an argument. Otherwise, his constitutional rights would be violated. However, I am not entirely convinced that one can shift, in the space of five or ten minutes, from a state of sanity to a state of insanity and back to a state of sanity. That argument went on for a long time, as the Minister is aware.

Some members of the public would dispute whether it is possible to achieve that condition. It was argued in court that it was possible and that there are circumstances where these things happen. However, there are tragic consequences for members of the public who had no knowledge of their impending doom and did nothing to deserve what happened to them but were just unfortunate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when this condition affected the person accused of committing the crime.

There was another high profile case which generated a huge amount of debate. The accused left the jurisdiction in unusual circumstances. The same argument was pursued in that case. Again, I respect the right to offer a defence but it is difficult and contradictory to accept the argument that, in a particular case, the person who was perfectly sane and capable suddenly became insane and decided to kill somebody, was perfectly capable again afterwards but had a relapse within a couple of hours and killed somebody else and then was perfectly sane again. Then, to secure release from prison, he decided that the insanity was only a temporary thing which affected him at a particular time, it was now gone and it was unfair that he should be in prison. That is a very thin argument.

The victims in these cases, however, have a different attitude and are extremely concerned. The person who has been murdered or killed has no defence. Nobody can come forward on their behalf and point out that they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It is their tough luck. I am not as well versed in legal argument as the Minister but there is an urgent need to recognise that the victims in such cases feel they have an ongoing grievance. I am not attempting to be harsh about this but all Members of the House have received correspondence from relatives of the victims of such incidents. They point out, with justification, that a member of their family was a victim and the perpetrator was able to argue successfully that the incident was only a temporary aberration and that it was unlikely to happen again.

I do not wish to encroach on cases that might be pending or under investigation but there are instances both here and in the UK of serial killers who find it convenient to plead not guilty by reason of insanity or temporary insanity. It is difficult to accept anything other than it is convenient for them to enter that plea. It is not so convenient for the succession of victims. When there is more than one victim it is difficult to accept that this unfortunate person, who obviously has problems, can be temporarily insane on a number of occasions and that the degree to which they can plead that case can result in their freedom.

I recall there was a high profile case when I was not long a Member of this House.

See this speech in context