The Supreme Court allowed Denis O’Callaghan’s appeal and ordered an injunction restraining further prosecution on new charges, after finding that a significant procedural error had left him unfairly disadvantaged.
O’Callaghan had been returned for trial in the Circuit Court on burglary and indecent assault charges. At his request, the court held an inquiry into his fitness to stand trial. After hearing psychiatric evidence from both sides, the judge ruled on 6 July 2006 that he was unfit and adjourned the proceedings until further order. The judge did not commit him to a designated medical centre.
Dr Harry Kennedy, Director of the Central Mental Hospital, later assessed O’Callaghan and concluded that he was not unfit to plead. The prosecution arranged a Circuit Court hearing for 22 November 2007 to present Kennedy’s evidence, but he was not called. After consulting with him, the prosecution concluded that a provision of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 did not apply and entered a nolle prosequi, ending the existing proceedings.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Fennelly said the prosecution had overlooked a separate provision allowing the court to determine that a person previously found unfit had become fit for trial. The prosecution could have called Kennedy and asked the court to make that determination. Fennelly said there was no question of bad faith, but the Director of Public Prosecutions had misapplied the legislation.
The consequences for a new prosecution were significant. The 2006 finding of unfitness ceased to have effect when the nolle prosequi was entered. In a fresh case, the ordinary presumption that an accused person is fit would apply, leaving O’Callaghan to produce evidence and establish his unfitness. Had the prosecution proceeded with the scheduled hearing, it would instead have had to persuade the court that he was no longer unfit.
Fennelly concluded that this shift placed O’Callaghan at a significant disadvantage and amounted to unfairness. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered an injunction restraining further prosecution on the new charges. The judgment said it was unnecessary to decide broader questions about the Director’s power to enter a nolle prosequi, which had not been argued.