The Court of Appeal has dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal over a finding that M.B. was unfit to stand trial on 56 charges alleging rape and sexual assault against C.C. between 1994 and 2000.
The appeal challenged both the Central Criminal Court’s unfitness decision and what happened after it. The Court of Appeal rejected both grounds. The charges were not tried in the proceedings described in this judgment, and the court did not determine their truth.
The trial judge found M.B. unfit to be tried after hearing evidence from two consultant forensic psychiatrists. The defence expert, Dr Paul O’Connell, considered that depression alongside an intellectual disability impaired M.B.’s ability to appreciate matters including the consequences of guilty and not guilty pleas and the ability to challenge a juror. The prosecution expert, Dr Conor O’Neill, considered him fit on balance, but accepted that his condition appeared to fluctuate and had no reason to disagree that M.B. had been assessed as depressed at an earlier time.
The Court of Appeal said the trial judge was entitled to prefer Dr O’Connell’s evidence. It found there was more than adequate evidence to support the unfitness ruling and said an appeal court should not replace a trial judge’s factual assessment where credible evidence supports it.
The second ground concerned the trial judge’s decision to adjourn the case until further order without directing a medical assessment under section 4 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006, as amended. The DPP argued that an assessment of M.B.’s treatment needs should have been obtained. The defence opposed a referral to the Central Mental Hospital, citing evidence that it was unsuitable for him and could worsen his condition.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge could not lawfully have ordered the proposed compulsory assessment in the circumstances. The Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum was the only designated centre available for the statutory assessment, which required an inpatient committal. Both psychiatrists had advised that such a committal would be contrary to M.B.’s welfare and expose him to risk. The court said sending him there could risk harm and breach his rights to liberty, bodily integrity and autonomy in healthcare decisions.
The court concluded that the trial judge had no option but to adjourn the proceedings until further order. It dismissed the appeal in full.