John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I thank Senator Bacik again. The name change suggested by the amendments might appear on the face of it to be a simple matter but it raises complex and fundamental issues. I might take some time to go through a few of them.

The word "insanity" was used in the title of the 2006 Act because it is the correct description of that Act's contents. The Act's definition of "insanity" was drafted in light of judicial authority over the precise meaning of insanity and the circumstances in which the finding of insanity would excuse a person from criminal liability. The House will be aware that the issue was extensively debated during the passage of the Act through the Oireachtas. That Act's gestation period was ten years, during which time this issue was examined in great depth. I mention these long periods of deliberation to stress the complexity of the issues that have now been raised.

The plea of insanity in law is an excuse rather than a condition in that it is a factor that excuses liability for the commission of a crime. Our law places the matter firmly within legal parameters directly related to personal responsibility for one's actions. In this scenario, medical evidence will be influential, although not decisive. This means that an accused person who has been diagnosed as mentally insane may fail to satisfy the criteria for criminal insanity in law.

Section 5(1)(b) of the 2006 Act provides for the verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The point I am making is that one might be suffering from a mental disorder, but it must be such that the accused person ought not to be held responsible for the act alleged by reason of the fact that he or she did not know the nature and quality of the act or, in other circumstances, did not know that what he or she was doing was wrong or was unable to refrain from committing the act.

This provision appropriately emphasises the fact that the issue for the court is fundamentally one of legal responsibility rather than psychiatric responsibility. We do not want a jury to arrive at a view whereby any mental disorder, regardless of how trivial it might be, could provide grounds for acquittal. Our concern is that the threshold could be lowered. I am particularly interested in hearing the Senator's response to this point. The 2006 Act provided a high threshold and it is important that psychiatry is not perceived as a get-out-of-jail-free card for people in circumstances in which public confidence in the administration of justice could be adversely affected. Changing from "insanity" to "mental disorder" could send a signal that the threshold is being significantly lowered. That is our greatest concern. The criminal law is the main focus of the 2006 Act and it would be misleading to change the Title to refer to mental disorder. The term is primarily used to decide a person is in need of care and treatment in a psychiatric hospital and is the primary focus of the Mental Health Act 2001. While there is an aspect of that focus in the 2006 Act it is not the primary focus. It would be undesirable to introduce any doubt or uncertainty into this area of the law.

The purpose of the Bill is to deal with two issues which have arisen in relation to the operation of the 2006 Act and which require urgent attention. The Bill is not a suitable vehicle to address fundamental issues. If such issues require discussion it would be more appropriate to have them discussed in the context of the planned comprehensive review of the 2006 Act, which I have already committed myself to commencing later this year. It is important that we stick to our time commitments. I will, however, be happy to bring the issues raised by Senator Bacik to the attention of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and to ask him to consider them in that context. At this point I cannot accept the amendment but I assure Senator Bacik that the matter will be considered at the appropriate time. I will bring that review to the House during this year.

I bring to the attention of the House the need for another name change. Following the making of the necessary order, the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform will lose responsibility for equality issues. I propose to bring in an amendment to effect this change on Report Stage, if the order has not been made by then.