Results 18,201-18,220 of 18,761 for speaker:Michael McDowell

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: With the permission of the Chair, I wish to indicate that I will introduce an amendment on Report Stage to remove the word "or" from the phrase "or commit him" at the beginning of line 30 in section 3(3)(b). Amendment No. 17 not moved.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: The word "or" at the end of line 12 in section 3(2)(d) suggests that they are disjunctive rather than conjunctive.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: I am opposed to this amendment for the reasons I mentioned before. The court has to make certain decisions, but the view of the person who is associated with the institution to which the person being dealt with by the court may be sent is not determinative of the issue. I do not want to give a veto or a quasi veto to psychiatrists in these institutions. I do not want a situation where...

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: I am very well aware of the shortcomings of the Central Mental Hospital. I took the trouble to visit the institution which, although it is not directly under my remit, is very intimately connected with many of the functions of my Department. I was shown around by the staff.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: I came to a number of conclusions about the facility. It is a sub-standard institution situated on grounds which must have a colossal value. It is an amazing irony that a substandard institution should be squatting on an asset which ought to be realised to provide adequate mental health facilities. That is very strongly my opinion. I found it difficult to understand why some of the...

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: I profoundly disagree with that proposition. It should be moved elsewhere. Whatever difficulty exists with that building should be addressed by either redesignating it or by a planning decision which would allow it to be converted into apartments or whatever with major internal structural alterations. Preserving it as it is and using that campus for the purposes of the Central Mental Hospital...

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: In regard to the section generally, under the provisions of section 3(6) the approved medical officer is the consultant psychiatrist who will be treating the person concerning the designated centre. He or she would be the most appropriate person to provide the court with an opinion as to whether the person has a mental disorder. In any event, most consultant psychiatrists would consult with...

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: I appreciate the points made by Senator Henry in support of the amendment and I would be very concerned that any possibility might exist that people with certain conditions might be left to one side untreated or simply cared for. As this is solely a health issue my Department has discussed the matter with the Department of Health and Children and it favours the term "care or treatment" as...

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: I will look at it generally across the legislation.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: I have explained my view on that.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: The point made by Senator Tuffy is worthy of further consideration. It is a technical matter and I will consider it between now and Report Stage. I will again look at the interaction between sections 3(3) and 3(4) between now and then. In those circumstances I ask the Senator to withdraw her amendment for now.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: For once, I radically disagree with the Senator. Section 3(3)(a), in lines 14 and 15, provides that the District Court is referred to in this section as "the Court". This was not an omission but a deliberate drafting policy.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: The phrase is "a specified designated centre" and the Senator wants this to become "the specified designated centre". A specified centre must be specific. There will be no lack of specificity if we leave the indefinite article rather than the definite article in this case.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: It has to be specified, which means the court has to be specific about it. The phrase "a specified designated centre" means one that has been specified. The definite article is not required, as it would not be specified if it had not been identified.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: Section 4(4) states: Where on a trial for murder the accused contends— (a) that at the time of the alleged offence he or she was suffering from a mental disorder such that he or she ought to be found not guilty by reason of insanity, or (b) that at that time he or she was suffering from a mental disorder specified in section 5, the court shall allow the prosecution to adduce evidence...

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: That is an interesting point. It could be damaging to an individual that a semi-trial or a half-baked trial would be determined against his or her interest. It could have residual effects on his or her good name or on any potential trial at a later stage. I can see the force of what is being suggested and in those circumstances, I would like to consider the matter further and come back to it...

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: I am not attracted to the amendment on grounds that I have already stated.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: In my view that would be a bad idea for the reasons I outlined yesterday.

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: The Senator raises an interesting point. The purpose of the Bill in terms of the test for insanity for the purposes of criminal law is to restate the current position as it exists in judge-made common law. The third limb of the test for insanity as it exists in our law and, as set out in section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Bill, is known as "irresistible impulse". It has lightly been referred to as...

Seanad: Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed). (8 Apr 2004)

Michael McDowell: I have a difficulty with this point. What the Senator is speaking of is a person, during a court case, exhibiting symptoms of mental disorder or illness which would enable the judge to convict and sentence that person on the basis that he or she was able to understand the trial because of his or her fitness to participate in the trial but that he would order that a portion of the sentence be...