The High Court has quashed the Minister for Justice’s refusal to consider transferring an anonymised applicant from Ireland’s Central Mental Hospital to Germany, ruling that he qualified as a “sentenced person” under the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Act 1995.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons held that the Act could be interpreted consistently with Ireland’s obligations under the Convention on the Transfer of Sentenced Persons and an EU framework decision. The court declared the applicant eligible for transfer, but did not order that he be transferred. It remitted the application to the Minister for a fresh decision in line with the judgment.
The applicant had been tried for dangerous driving causing death. A jury returned a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, finding that he had committed the act but should not be held responsible because of a mental disorder. The trial judge later found that he needed inpatient care and treatment and ordered his detention at the Central Mental Hospital. The judgment says he has schizophrenia and that his detention was continued after periodic reviews.
The applicant sought transfer to Germany to be closer to family and receive treatment in his native language. The parties agreed that transfer was in his best interests and that he was eligible under the Convention. A secure psychiatric institution in Germany had agreed to treat him and provide comparable detention, treatment and reviews.
The Minister refused the application on the basis that the applicant was not serving a sentence: he had been found not guilty, and his detention followed findings about his mental health and need for care. At the hearing, however, the Minister’s counsel accepted that “commission of an offence” could refer to carrying out the acts alleged, without requiring criminal responsibility.
Mr Justice Simons found a direct link between the jury’s special verdict and the detention order. Although the verdict alone did not automatically lead to detention, it was an essential prerequisite to the trial judge’s power to commit the applicant. The statutory definition was broad enough to cover that detention, the court concluded.
The court set aside the refusal and directed the Minister to reconsider the application. The applicant may return to court if no fresh decision is made within 28 days. Reporting restrictions remain in force prohibiting publication of material likely to identify him. The court left costs for a separate order; its provisional view was that costs should be awarded to the applicant, subject to further submissions.