The High Court has ruled that an anonymised applicant’s detention at the Central Mental Hospital remained lawful after he was discharged on a murder count, because a separate assault charge remained before the criminal courts. The court dismissed his application for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention.
The Article 40.4.2 inquiry was directed by the High Court on 13 March 2015. Mr Justice Noonan had made an order on 19 March prohibiting publication of material likely to identify the applicant.
The applicant was charged in 2010 with assault causing serious harm after an attack on a patient at Tallaght Hospital. The other patient later died, and the applicant was charged with murder in 2011. In 2012, the Central Criminal Court found him unfit to be tried and committed him to the Central Mental Hospital, subject to review under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.
In February 2015, following a hearing under section 4(8) of that Act, the Central Criminal Court discharged the applicant on the murder count. It found a reasonable doubt about whether the alleged act caused or contributed more than minimally to the death. The court did not discharge him on the assault count, finding no reasonable doubt that he had done the act alleged. That was a determination in the unfitness proceedings, not a trial verdict.
The applicant argued that the 2012 committal order was tied to the murder charge and had run its course when that count was dismissed. The clinical director and the Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the committal related to the criminal proceedings, which continued while the assault charge remained. The DPP also submitted that the murder charge could have resulted in alternative verdicts, including assault causing serious harm.
Mr Justice Noonan held that the legal basis for detention was the Central Criminal Court’s 2012 order, rather than later Review Board decisions. He concluded that the original proceedings encompassed possible alternative verdicts and continued while the assault charge remained. The applicant’s detention was therefore in accordance with law.
The judge dismissed the application. He did not order the applicant’s release or make a new committal order. His ruling addressed the lawfulness of the detention on the charges and orders before him.