John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I have had the benefit of recent meetings with Professor Harry Kennedy of the National Forensic Mental Health Service and presentations on the European Convention on Human Rights at which I heard praise for the court diversion service. I believe it is the way to go in this area but it is not appropriate for me to accept this amendment at this point.

On Committee Stage, I stated my concern that the effect of this amendment would be to deny the District Court the power to refer an accused person for examination to a designated centre. This would, in turn, deny the court the opportunity of receiving a report from a consultant psychiatrist as to whether the person was suffering from a mental disorder and, in particular, in need of inpatient care and treatment in a designated centre. The power of the courts to have such reports before them before considering depriving a person of liberty is considered necessary to comply with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights and to be consistent with the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2001. Persons dealt with by the District Court are as entitled to the protection of such rights as persons dealt with by the higher courts.

Senator Bacik may wish to abolish the powers of the District Court to deal with issues of fitness to be tried. Such a step begs the question of what would happen when such cases arise in the District Court. Would the cases have to be referred to the Circuit Court? This would be a fundamental change to the 2006 Act and is not suitable for examination in this Bill's context. It will also be dealt with in the review of the 2006 legislation later this year.