The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by F.X., holding that his discharge on a murder charge under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 did not end the criminal proceedings arising from the same incident.
F.X. was found unfit for trial in 2012 and committed to the Central Mental Hospital for inpatient treatment. In a later hearing under section 4(8) of the Act, the Central Criminal Court found a reasonable doubt about whether his actions caused the victim’s death. It discharged him in respect of the murder charge, but did not discharge him from the proceedings altogether.
The Supreme Court considered what the Act means by the requirement to determine whether an accused person “did the act alleged”. It held that, for this procedure, the question is whether the accused’s actions caused an event, or whether responsibility can be attributed to the accused for a state of affairs forbidden by criminal law. The court said this approach does not require the hearing to decide criminal intent. It also cautioned that the approach may need adaptation for offences such as attempt or secondary liability, and that questions about certain defences remain difficult.
Applying that interpretation, the Court said the Central Criminal Court was right to consider whether F.X.’s actions caused the death. The prosecution could not prove that they did. But the Court said the same actions caused a serious injury, an event forbidden by law, and the murder-charge finding therefore did not rule out every possible outcome of a future trial.
The Court accepted that F.X. had not been sent forward for trial on a separate serious-harm charge, and that the section 4(8) procedure did not permit an indictment or the addition of counts. It also said the alternative-verdict procedure applies only at trial. The trial judge had not convicted F.X.; the finding that he was not entitled to complete discharge left open the possibility of a full trial if he later became fit.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Its ruling did not convict F.X. or decide the outcome of any future trial. The judgment was delivered by Justice O’Malley on 20 June 2024.