The High Court has ruled that a District Court cannot reissue a warrant committing an accused person for assessment at the Central Mental Hospital after the hospital was unable to accept him. The criminal proceedings must remain adjourned with liberty to re-enter if he is later deemed fit to stand trial.
President of the High Court Kearns gave the ruling on 14 November 2013 in a case stated by District Court Judge Catherine Murphy. The questions concerned procedural powers under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 in the case against Andrius Burlega.
Burlega faced charges alleging that he damaged a display window and door at Berlin Opticians on Capel Street, Dublin, on 28 March 2012, and assaulted Tim Cashman at the same premises on 28 February 2012. These were allegations set out in the case; the High Court was addressing procedural questions, not deciding the charges.
A report from a Central Mental Hospital doctor dated 29 June 2012 concluded that Burlega was unfit to stand trial because of a mental disorder. On 13 November 2012, the District Court ordered that he be committed to the hospital for assessment. The hospital’s clinical director said it could not accept him because no space was available. After he was returned to the District Court, he was taken to a garda station. The High Court later found his detention there unlawful and ordered his release. He was then arrested under the Mental Health Act 2001 and brought to St Vincent’s Hospital, Fairview, where the judgment said he remained a patient.
The High Court said the District Court’s original committal order remained valid, but the District Court had no statutory power to reissue the warrant. The court rejected the suggestion that such a power could be implied because the original order had been frustrated. It also said the District Court Rules provision for reissuing certain unexecuted warrants did not apply to this committal warrant.
Kearns said a fresh assessment process would be needed to establish Burlega’s current position, but the 2006 Act made no provision for that process in these circumstances. Reissuing a warrant without a clear statutory basis could affect his rights.
Answering the four questions, the High Court said the substantive proceedings should be adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter if Burlega became fit to stand trial. Neither a reissued warrant nor a new assessment order could be made unless an application was made on his behalf to reverse the finding of unfitness. The charges were not to be struck out solely because there was no evidence that he had recovered his fitness.