The Court of Appeal has ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot appeal a District Court finding that an accused person is unfit to be tried under section 7 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.
The ruling came in a consultative case stated from the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeal was asked whether section 7 permits a DPP appeal to the Circuit Court against such a finding. It answered: “No.” The court did not retry the accused or decide the underlying charges.
The accused, identified in the judgment as JM, had been charged with offences under section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 and section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1991. The alleged offences occurred on 15 January 2014, when JM was a minor. After the defence raised fitness to be tried, the District Court received medical reports and other evidence. On 21 July 2016, Judge John O’Connor found, on the balance of probabilities, that JM was unfit to be tried. The DPP then filed a notice of appeal.
The accused argued that section 7’s wording and structure limited appeals to the person found unfit. In particular, it provides that if an appeal is allowed, the appellant may be ordered to be tried or retried. The accused also argued that the DPP could return the matter to the original court if circumstances changed, and that a prosecution appeal should not be read into the statute without express provision.
The DPP submitted that section 7(1), which says an appeal “shall lie” from a District Court unfitness determination, does not restrict who may appeal. It argued that “appellant” in later subsections referred to the person who was the subject of the appeal.
The Court of Appeal rejected that interpretation. It said “appellant” appeared six times in subsections 7(2) and 7(3), and found no support for treating the word as meaning the person who was merely the subject of an appeal. The court concluded that the wording of section 7 precludes appeals by the DPP.
The Circuit Court had referred the legal question to the Court of Appeal rather than rule on it. The Court of Appeal’s answer resolves that statutory question; the judgment does not state that the charges were determined or that the unfitness finding was overturned.