Seanad debates

Thursday, 8 April 2004

Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2002: Committee Stage (Resumed).

 

1:00 am

Mary Henry (Independent)

I move amendment No. 36:

In page 7, subsection (1)(b), line 26, to delete subparagraph (iii).

This is an important amendment. I have a copy of the third interim report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Mentally Ill and Maladjusted Patients. As far as I am aware, the McNaughton rules, when first published, did not contain a section on the defence of "irresistible impulse" and that it in fact arose out of case law. Many people believe it folly to include this in the Bill because everyone will be claiming they had an irresistible impulse to do something. For example, the Minister spoke yesterday of kleptomania. A constant plea of those who sexually abuse children is that they had an irresistible impulse to do so and could not stop themselves.

It is foolish to include such a provision in the Bill. It is not included in the legislation of any other country. It certainly is not included in UK legislation. I have been told that some states in America have included a similar provision. I suggest, no matter how great the wisdom of those judges who decided a person had an irresistible impulse to commit a particular crime, it is not wise to continue with the provision for such a defence in the Bill.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.