Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

A number of issues arise regarding this Bill, which has been generally welcomed by most Members of the House. One was already referred to by Deputy McHugh in his contribution, namely, the length of time it has taken to introduce such a Bill to the House. It is worth noting that the most prominent of the cases that have caused public concern in this area took place a considerable time ago. The John Gallagher case, for instance, which involved the double killing of Annie Gillespie and her mother, took place in Sligo General Hospital 17 years ago, in 1988. After being declared guilty but insane and placed in the Central Mental Hospital, Mr. Gallagher subsequently absconded. In 1994, Brendan O'Donnell was responsible for the vicious deaths of Imelda Riney, her young son and a local curate. That these events took place 17 and 11 years ago begs the question why this House has not seen fit to change this legislation before now. It is a question that might better be put to the Minister's predecessor at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform who introduced a Private Members' Bill along these lines while Opposition spokesperson on justice in 1996. This far into the life of the Government, legislation in this area is finally brought forward.

It is to be hoped that reforming legislation in this area will finally eliminate the phraseology that has bedevilled the discussion of criminal law in the context of persons who are psychologically and mentally under various forms of duress. While the Dáil in this session has passed statute law revision to remove some of the archaic legislation that included references to "lunatics", "idiots" and "imbeciles", it is something of an irony that a Bill which proposes to eliminate the verdict of guilty but insane is itself called the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill. This is something that might be examined on Committee Stage. It seems a contradiction in terms that the Title of the legislation should include the pejorative word "insanity". Since the Bill proposes to introduce a new verdict of guilty with diminished responsibility, the word "insanity" in its Title should be replaced with the words "diminished responsibility".

Of vital importance is the intent of the Government in terms of providing resources to ensure the circumstances do not arise where persons of diminished responsibility could cause the type of pain and anguish experienced in the cases of John Gallagher and Brendan O'Donnell. I question whether adequate resources are given to identifying psychological illness to ensure such illness is correctly treated. The trend of Government actions, as evidenced by its proposal to relocate the Central Mental Hospital on the same campus as the new prison in Thornton Hall in County Dublin, speaks of an attitude that does not properly make the distinction between psychological disorders and the need for a criminal law system that has a penal element. As long as the thinking persists that there can and should be a central mental hospital as part of a campus with a prison, many of the objectives of this legislation will not be realised in the long term because it has not challenged the central misconceptions that exist in this area.

We must also consider how our legal system generally deals with criminal incidents involving occasions of diminished responsibility that may not be part of a long-term psychological disorder on the part of the perpetrator, particularly in the case of murder. A case that is currently prominent in the media, to which I will not refer directly because an appeal is pending, is relevant in this regard. The defence of diminished responsibility can be based on such circumstances as irrational fear, the need to protect property above persons and the question of whether a life is worth less or more in the case of members of a particular section of society. These are issues that could be addressed in the debate on this Bill.

Unfortunately, however, a debate is raging among the public that involves questioning the validity of much of what should be considered civilised values. Where people have fears, those are most adequately addressed by better socialisation and policing. They should never be addressed by one person or groups of people acting in a vigilante fashion in deciding whether one life is worth less than another. Such an approach represents a collective irrationality and a collective psychological disorder in society at large. The case to which I refer may be beyond the scope of this Bill but it raises the issues of diminished responsibility and irrational behaviour. Where the death of a person is caused by the actions of another, irrespective of the fears and concerns of the latter, it diminishes our society. We must be more honest about this.

I regret that I heard a prominent public representative, a former Member of this House, speaking on this case in the national media in a way that compromises its further progress through the courts. This is not helpful in the circumstances and particularly so for the individual concerned. We must debate the wider issues in the context of the value of human life and the circumstances in which people can feel safe and secure in their homes. These are issues from which many politicians are running.

It has taken a long time to produce this legislation and we could go even further in distancing ourselves from unnecessary, archaic and insulting language in dealing with psychological and psychiatric disorders. In terms of how we use our resources as a society in making a proper distinction between criminal acts and acts of a criminal nature committed by persons not in full possession of their mental capacities on a particular occasion, it is clear that we still have a distance to travel. This is attentive legislation but it is only basically reforming. If more is not done, other types of reforming legislation will be required and there will be more hypocritical talk about how this problem should be dealt with.

See this speech in context