O'Connor v The Judges of the Dublin Metropolitan District
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Hanlon J., |
| Judgment Date | 24 June 1992 |
| Neutral Citation | 1992 WJSC-HC 2618 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | RECORD NO. 86JR/92,[1992 No. 86 J.R.] |
| Date | 24 June 1992 |
BETWEEN
AND
1992 WJSC-HC 2618
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
CRIMINAL LAW
Plea
Accused - Fitness - Determination - District Court - Jurisdiction - Charge - Indictable offence - Preliminary examination - Issue of accused's fitness to plead - Procedure applicable when issue raised - Enquiry into such fitness - Bail - Mental condition of applicant - Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, ss. 5, 8 - (1992/86 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 24/6/92) - [1992] 1 I.R. 387
|O. v. Judges of the Dublin Metropolitan District|
DISTRICT COURT
Jurisdiction
Charge - Plea - Accused - Fitness - Determination - Indictable offence - Preliminary examination - Enquiry into fitness of accused to plead - (1992/86 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 24/6/92)1992 1 IR 387
|O. v. Judges of the Dublin Metropolitan District|
Citations:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 S4 (UK)
R V WEBB 1969 2 QB 329
R V BURLES 1970 2 QB 191
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 S4(2) (UK)
R V ROBERTS 1954 2 QB 329
C, STATE V MIN FOR JUSTICE & ORS 1967 IR 106
LUNATICS ASYLUMS (IRL) ACT 1875 S13
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S24(4)
CASELEY, STATE V CENTRAL MENTAL INSTITUTION UNREP GANNON 19.2.79
MENTAL TREATMENT ACT 1945 S207
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 S4(1) (UK)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (INSANITY) ACT 1964 S4(3) (UK)
DCR r35
CONSTITUTION ART 38
CRIMINAL LUNATICS ACT 1900 S2
LUNACY (IRL) ACT 1821
JURIES ACT 1976
CENTRAL CRIMINAL LUNATIC ASYLUM ACT 1845
O, STATE V O'BRIEN 1971 IR 42
Judgment delivered by O'Hanlon J.,the 24th day of June, 1992.
In these proceedings for judicial review the Applicant seeks an Order of Prohibition against the Judges of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court to prohibit them from holding or adjudicating upon an inquiry whether the Applicant is fit to plead to charges which have been brought against him by the Director of Public Prosecutions at the suit of Det. Garda James Lyng.
The Applicant was arrested at his home on the 17th October, 1990, on suspicion of having committed the offence of Rape on or about the 18th day of May, 1990, at Coultry Road, Ballymun, in the Dublin Metropolitan District. He was then approximately 17 years of age. Having been interviewed in Ballymun Garda Station he was released, but was re-arrested on the 1st May, 1991 and was charged with the offences of Rape and Indecent Assault as set out on Charge Sheets 380 and 381 Ballymun. He was brought before a Judge of the District Court in the Dublin Metropolitan District and remanded onbail for successive periods of remand down to the present time.
On the 11th June, 1991, Judge Kirby sitting in the District Court granted a Certificate of Legal Aid in favour of the Applicant, and a Book of Evidence was served on the Applicant. The case was then adjourned to the 25th June, 1991, for submissions on the Book ofEvidence.
It was claimed, however, that the Solicitor and Counsel assigned to represent the Applicant were unable to take proper instructions from him because of his mental condition and the further progress of the preliminary enquiry before the District Court under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, has come to a halt while this issue is being considered.
Psychiatric and psychological reports relating to the mental condition of the Applicant and his fitness to plead have been sought and obtained and made available to the District Court and ultimately, on the 10th December, 1991, Judge Hamill indicated that he intended to hold an inquiry into the question whether the Applicant was fit to plead to the charges before the Court.
This proposal was, however, strongly opposed by the Applicant's legal representatives, and after further legal argument the matter was dealt with by Judge William Harnett on the 20th January, 1992, who concurred with the view previously expressed by his colleague, Judge Hamill, thatsuch an inquiry should be held in the District Court, and he adjourned the matter to the 4th March, 1992, to enable the inquiry take place.
These proceedings for judicial review were then initiated for the purpose of challenging the validity of the decision made in the District Court and leave was given to apply for an Order of Prohibition as mentioned at the outset.
The contention made on behalf of the Applicant is that the District Court not having jurisdiction to try the charges against the Applicant, or having refused jurisdiction, the only forum for an inquiry into whether the Applicant is fit to plead to charges against him is the court of trial which - if the Applicant were sent forward for trial - would be the Central Criminal Court.
It is also claimed that even if the mental condition of the Applicant is such as could give rise to a finding of unfitness to plead, he nevertheless has an entitlement to have the evidence supporting the charges put before a court of trial (if he is sent forward for trial), so that if such evidence is regarded as insufficient to lead to a conviction he could be cleared of the charges against him and have his good name vindicated in that way.
It is submitted that the alternative course, which is normally followed, and which may lead to a preliminary finding of unfitness to plead, followed by an order for the detention of an accused in a suitable institution until afinding of fitness to plead can be made in his favour, may not respect the constitutional rights of an accused to have his good name vindicated at the earliest possible time, and to have his right to liberty of the person defended in an appropriate manner. It is claimed that these considerations apply with especial force where the evidence in support of the prosecution is palpably weak in character and that the case against the Applicant warrants this description.
Were the District Court, in the course of the preliminary inquiry, to embark on the proposed inquiry into the Applicant's fitness to plead, it is submitted that an unfavourable finding in this respect would prevent the Applicant from asserting the other constitutional rights on which he seeks to rely, before a court of trial.
For these reasons it is sought on behalf of the Applicant to have a decision made in the District Court either to refuse informations against the Applicant if the case presented against him in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Act, 1967, appears insufficient to support the charges, or alternatively, to send him forward for trial to the Central Criminal Court, but that such decision should be made without regard to the issue of his fitness to plead or of his mental condition when the case falls to be dealt with by way of the statutory preliminary inquiry before the District Court.
For the Applicant Mr. Rogers referred the Court to two judgments of the Court of Appeal in England where a similarissue had come up for consideration in applying the provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act, 1964, s. 4.
That section deals specifically with the problem that arises in the present case, and provides as follows:
2 s.4 (1) Where on the trial of a person the question arises ..... whether the accused is under disability, that is to say under any disability such that apart from this Act it would constitute a bar to his being tried, the following provisions shall have effect.
(2) The court, if having regard to the nature of the supposed disability the court are of opinion that it is expedient so to do and in the interests of the accused, may postpone consideration of the said question (hereinafter referred to as "the question of fitness to be tried") until any time up to the opening of the case for the defence, and if before the question of fitness to be tried falls to be determined the jury return a verdict of acquittal on the count ...on which the accused is being tried that question shall not bedetermined.
(3) Subject to the foregoing subsection, the question of fitness to be tried shall be determined as soon as it arises.
The two cases concerned were Reg. v. Webb (1969) 2 QB 329, and Reg. v. Burles, (1970) 2 QB 191. In the latter case it was held by the Court of Appeal that when a trial judge considered section 4 (2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act, 1964, he must first assess the apparent strength or weakness of the prosecution case as disclosed on the depositions or statements; he should then consider the nature and degree of the suggested disability from medical reports before him and ask himself what was expedient in the interest of the accused. Postponement of the trial of the issue could be wholly inexpedient where the prosecution case appeared strong and the suggested condition of the defendant verydisabling; on the other hand, the prosecution case might be so thin that whatever the degree of disablement it would clearly be expedient to postpone the trial; in the case then before the Court it was held there was a certainty of the prosecution not proving their case (this having been stated by counsel for the prosecution when the case was called for trial); accordingly the finding of the jury finding him under a disability must be quashed and also the order of the court giving effect to that finding.
The Court of Appeal in that case drew attention to the fact that even before the passing of the English Act of 1964, the matter had been called into question by Devlin J. (as he then was) in Reg. v.Roberts, (1954) 2 QB 329, 333 when he commented as follows:
..... to insist on the issue of fitness to plead being tried might result in the grave injustice of detaining as a criminal lunatic a man who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'C v Judges of the Dublin Metropolitan District
...when the judge of the District Court dealing with the matter was not satisfied that the accused person was a person fit to plead (see [1992] 1 I.R. 387). The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court. Held by the Supreme Court (Finlay C.J., Hederman, O'Flaherty, Egan and Blayney JJ.), in dism......