Paddy McHugh (Galway East, Independent)

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this desirable legislation, which is long overdue. It is difficult to understand the reason a previous Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did not bring it forward at an earlier stage, particularly when one considers the advices in the 1978 Henchy report, which are incorporated into this Bill. It has been disturbing to see reports on some court cases involving people who were obviously mentally ill yet who were being tried before a court as though they were completely sane. High profile murder cases get a great deal of media attention because mandatory sentencing makes it essential that, if appropriate, a plea of insanity be brought forward. However, it is also important in the District Court where there were summary charges against people who are mentally ill.

The purpose of the Bill is to modernise the law and bring it into accord with the jurisprudence of the European Convention on Human Rights, which Ireland has incorporated into domestic law. The main provisions of the Bill are to replace the concept of fitness to plead with the concept of fitness to be tried; provide for a statutory definition of "criminal insanity"; and provide for a new verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, which replaces the archaic concept of guilty but insane, and a new concept of guilty with diminished responsibility, which could reduce a murder charge to one of manslaughter, with the discretion being allowed to the court in the case of sentencing.

The European Convention on Human Rights requires that a provision be made for the establishment of a review mechanism, and this will take the form of a new body known as the mental health review body, which will formally review and investigate cases where people have been detained under the provisions of the new legislation. The Bill provides for designated places of detention for persons with a mental illness or disorder who have come before the courts. It is difficult to define what mental illness is, either medically or legally, but to define mental disorder is much more complex.

Regarding the case of a verdict of diminished responsibility, which I support as we are bringing Ireland into line with many other countries, in this instance it is confined to murder. Should it be confined to murder? Murder carries a mandatory life sentence and now, if successfully pleaded under diminished responsibility, a conviction for manslaughter will be recorded. However, there must be other criminal cases in which an accused has diminished responsibility. The plea of diminished responsibility will be decided by a jury and it is a matter for the jury to decide if diminished responsibility led to the situation. The Minister stated that this will not be applied in other cases because the judge will have the opportunity of taking diminished responsibility into account when sentencing. The onus is put on the judge to deal with a matter of fact.

Judgments are often criticised in the media. Sometimes the criticisms appear to be justified. In other instances, the full facts of the case may not be recorded in the media, leading to unfair criticism being levelled at judges. Are we wise to allow that situation to continue, particularly in a case where a judge may take into account diminished responsibility when passing sentence?

I would like the Minister to clarify the composition of the mental health review board. I note the suggestion in the Bill that it has no significant financial or staffing implications. An advisory board exists and it would be helpful to know to what extent it will have extra staffing. What are the projected costings for the new board as opposed to the existing ad hoc advisory committee? If a mental health review board is to be established, which is a good step forward, it must be done properly.

I welcome the Bill. It is an important step forward which will have the effect of offering further protections to people who need that protection but who may not be in a position to set out their stall in a coherent manner. It removes the disparaging concept — guilty but insane — which is most welcome. I could never understand how somebody could be guilty of an offence if they were insane. It is regrettable that it took so long for such legislation to come before us in this House but even though it is late, it is welcome and the Minister is to be thanked.

See this speech in context