The Dublin Metropolitan Children Court has found JM unfit to be tried on four charges, concluding that proposed courtroom supports would not enable him to understand the proceedings adequately. The court said it would hear further submissions on the remaining requirements of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.
The charges concern an alleged robbery in spring 2013, criminal damage and assault charges stated in the judgment to have been made in winter 2001, and possession of an article in summer 2014. The judgment does not decide those charges. The court was addressing fitness to be tried, after the defence raised the issue and both sides provided psychiatric reports and oral evidence.
The judge found JM had a severe psychotic mental illness, extremely low intellectual functioning and severe memory loss that substantially affected his decision-making capacity. The court also found that his limited capacity arose from his illness and low intellectual ability, rather than lifestyle or substance abuse, which had only a marginal impact, if any.
The evidence included differing expert opinions. Dr W, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia and mild intellectual disability, but considered JM fit to be tried if supported by strategies to help him participate. Dr L disagreed and considered him unfit. A guardian ad litem, Mr NR, said JM was vulnerable, needed support and could not reliably process or retain information even with assistance. The judgment also records disagreement between witnesses about JM’s living conditions.
The prosecution argued that the Children Court could adapt its procedures and that supports recommended by Dr W would assist JM. The defence argued he was unfit even with an advocate. The judge concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the issues of fitness and support could not be separated in this case. The court said the law did not provide for a conditional finding of fitness based on appointing an intermediary, and found that the proposed adjustments and an advocate with Mr NR’s experience would not adequately safeguard JM at trial.
The judge noted that JM might benefit from a specialist intermediary, such as a child and adolescent psychiatrist, but said that possibility was speculative because no evidence on it had been presented. The court made no determination on the charges in this judgment and did not set out the further requirements’ outcome; it said submissions on those matters would be heard.