Application of Maguire

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 09 July 1996
• Date: 09 July 1996
• Docket Number: [1996 No. 651 SS]
• Court: High Court

High Court

[1996 No. 651 SS]

Application of Maguire

In the matter of an application for an enquiry pursuant to Article 40, s. 4, sub-s. 2 of the Constitution. John Gallagher

Applicant

and

The Director of the Central Mental Hospital, Respondent (No. 2)

The Minister for Justice, Ireland and The Attorney General, Notice Parties

Application of Maguire

Application of Patrick Maguire

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Application of Gallagher [1991] 1 I.R. 31; [1991] I.L.R.M. 339.

Application of Ellis [1990] 2 I.R. 291; [1991] I.L.R.M. 225.

In re Philip Clarke [1950] I.R. 235; (1949) 85 I.L.T.R. 119.

S.P.U.C. v. Coogan [1989] I.R. 734; [1990] I.L.R.M. 70.

Criminal law - Locus standi - Role of victim in proceedings related to criminal process.

Notice of motion.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Geoghegan J., infra.

By notice of motion dated the 14th June, 1996, the applicant sought leave to be joined in the inquiry into the detention of John Gallagher, in whatever capacity the Court deemed fit.

The motion was heard by the High Court (Geoghegan, Laffoy and Kelly JJ.) on the 20th and 21st June, 1996.

J.G. was found guilty of murder but insane, and by order of the High Court, made pursuant to the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, was detained at the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum.

Subsequently, he was given leave by the High Court to apply for an order for his release pursuant to Article 40, s. 4, sub-s. 2 of the Constitution.

The applicant, who was the uncle and brother-in-law of J.G.'s victims, applied to be joined as a party to the proceedings. He claimed locus standi on the basis that he possessed evidence supporting a genuine apprehension on his part that a release pursuant to the Article 40 enquiry would pose a danger to his life and the lives of his relatives and other people in his locality.

Held by the High Court (Geoghegan, Laffoy, Kelly JJ.) in dismissing the application, 1, that there was no need for additional representation since the only issue to be determined in the Article 40 enquiry was the question of J.G.'s immediate release, on which issue there was no conflict of interest between the applicant and the State.

2. That the question of the release of a person detained pursuant to s. 2 of the Trial of Lunatics Act, 1883, was a matter solely for the Executive, and the applicant had adduced no evidence that the Executive had improperly carried out this function to date.

Application of Gallagher [1991] 1 I.R. 31 applied.

3. That in carrying out this function the Executive was concerned with the past history of the detainee only to the extent that it was helpful in assessing his current condition.

4. That as a general principle, a potential victim, or alleged potential victim, can never be beard by a court determining a matter related to the criminal process. Separate representation for the victim at a criminal trial could dangerously compromise the necessary independence and detachment of the judge and jury trying the case.

Application of Ellis [1990] 2 I.R. 291 considered. S.P.U.C. v. Coogan[1989] I.R. 734 distinguished.

Semble: That since the Constitution envisaged the widest possible powers conferred on a court hearing an Article 40 enquiry, there might be cases where a party to the proceedings, not the actual detainer, should be given a hearing in the interests of fair procedure, for instance where the court had to look behind the document, or documents, purporting to authorise the detention.

Cur. adv. vult.

Geoghegan J.

This is a motion brought by Mr. Patrick Maguire seeking to be joined in proceedings for an enquiry under Article 40, s. 4, sub-s. 2 of the Constitution. John Gallagher, the applicant in the Article 40 proceedings, had been tried for the murder of Anne Gillespie and Annie Gillespie. A jury returned a verdict of guilty but insane. By virtue of the verdict and consequential order of the court, Mr. Gallagher is being detained at the Central Mental Hospital, Dundrum. Mr. Maguire is the uncle and brother-in-law respectively of the two deceased.

Mr. Maguire's application is opposed by all parties to the Article 40 enquiry, that is to say, John Gallagher, the Director of the Central Mental Hospital, the Minister for Justice, the Government of Ireland, Ireland and the Attorney General. It is submitted by the parties that Mr. Maguire has no locus standi.

Mr. Maguire claims his locus standi in the following circumstances. He is aware that Mr. Gallagher in the Article 40 proceedings is seeking an immediate release. He claims to have evidence to support a genuine apprehension on his part that such a release would pose a danger to his own life and the lives of other relatives and people in his locality. The relevant paragraphs in the main grounding affidavit read as follows:—

"9. I say that this...