The High Court has refused to declare unlawful the detention of an anonymised applicant in Cork Prison, while finding that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to decide whether he was fit to plead to two theft charges.
In a judgment delivered on 20 August 2021, Mr Justice Barr said the theft charges could not be tried summarily because the applicant was unable to understand his right to trial by jury and indicate that he did not object to summary disposal. That was a statutory precondition to the District Court taking jurisdiction.
The applicant had been charged with stealing cans of lager and gin worth €4.50 and €22.44 in May 2021. He was later charged with allegedly assaulting his mother with a knife. The theft charges were indictable offences, though the Director of Public Prosecutions had consented to their being dealt with summarily.
The applicant’s lawyers argued that a District Court judge acted unlawfully by not determining his fitness to plead after being told no bed was available at the Central Mental Hospital (CMH). They relied on a psychiatrist’s evidence that the applicant had paranoid schizophrenia, was refusing treatment in prison and needed treatment available only at the CMH. They also argued that his continued detention in Cork Prison violated his right to bodily integrity.
The respondent and the DPP argued that the District Court could not determine fitness to plead because the applicant could not make the choice required for summary trial. They said he was receiving substantial care in prison and was on the CMH waiting list. The hospital’s representative said admission depended on clinical triage and available beds.
The High Court accepted that the DPP had consented to summary disposal and that the District Court judge appeared prepared to accept jurisdiction. But Justice Barr said the applicant’s inability to understand the jury-trial right meant he could not satisfy the remaining statutory condition. The District Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to decide fitness to plead on the theft charges.
The judgment said the statutory route was for those charges to be sent forward to the Circuit Criminal Court, which would decide fitness to plead and any appropriate remand. The High Court did not order that transfer in this Article 40 inquiry.
The court separately accepted the psychiatrist’s evidence that the applicant urgently needed CMH treatment. It nevertheless found that his prison care was at a high level and that release into the community would likely expose him to danger and worsen his condition. It ruled that the bodily-integrity argument had not established unlawful detention.
The court refused the requested declaration that detention in Cork Prison was unlawful. It made no order for release or admission to the CMH, and said an open-ended stay pending a hospital bed would not have been appropriate.