Seanad debates

Thursday, 1 April 2010

Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2010: Committee Stage.

 

11:00 am

Photo of John MoloneyJohn Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

): Amendment No. 1 provides for the designation of psychiatric centres other than the Central Mental Hospital. On Second Stage I referred to the fact that an amendment was being considered in order to allow centres other than the Central Mental Hospital to be designated for the purposes of carrying out examinations in cases where an issue arises in respect of an accused person's fitness to be tried. At that point Senator Bacik referred to persons who might have committed less serious crimes and I gave a commitment to return to her on the issue.

The amendment will give the Minister for Health and Children the power to designate psychiatric centres for the examination of persons referred by the District Court under section 4 of the 2006 Act in cases where a question of fitness to be tried arises. Following consultation with the Department of Health and Children, the amendment was drafted in order to facilitate the Minister for Health and Children to provide that the Central Mental Hospital need not be used for examining persons who could be dealt with in psychiatric units elsewhere. I commend the amendment to the House and thank Senators for their proposals on the matter on Second Stage.

There are some technical difficulties with amendment No. 2, as it stands, in that it effectively would provide that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should be in a position to designate centres under the legislation. Given that such centres are psychiatric centres, this power is appropriate to the Minister for Health and Children, not the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Amendment No. 1 goes some way towards dealing with the issue amendment No. 2 seeks to address. As stated, it provides that the Minister for Health and Children can designate centres other than the Central Mental Hospital, to which the District Court can refer people for examination where their fitness to be tried is at issue. Accordingly, amendment No. 1 is focused on dealing with those who have committed less serious crimes. However, it is not limited to referrals from the District Court. It also covers referrals from the higher courts in serious cases where security might be at issue.

The use of centres other than the Central Mental Hospital for the examination and treatment of persons who come within the ambit of the 2006 Act is a matter that has been earmarked for examination by the Ministers for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and Health and Children in the context of the comprehensive review of the Act. I am not, therefore, in a position to accept amendment No. 2. I hope Senators will accept that amendment No. 1, by focusing on persons before the courts for minor crimes, goes a long way towards meeting the concerns raised.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.