Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
High Court has jurisdiction to inquire into lawfulness of detention ordered by Central Criminal Court in Article 40 application
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court dismisses 1) appeal of Central Mental Hospital against High Court ruling (Hogan J) that detention was unlawful and 2) cross-appeal of detainee against same judgment for putting a stay on release - on grounds that both appeals were moot. But in order give certainty following conflicting judgments in High Court, Court further holds that: (a) High Court has jurisdiction under Art 40.4.2 of Constitution to inquire into lawfulness of detention ordered by Central Criminal Court, subject to limitations; (b) there is no provision in Constitution for stay on successful Art 40 application (but Court can make interim orders in exceptional circumstances); and (c) that law requires Central Criminal Court, once satisfied that accused is unfit to be tried, to adjourn proceedings in order to consider the evidence of approved medical officer.
Denham CJ (nem diss): Appeal by Clinical Director of Central Mental Hospital against judgment of High Court (Hogan J) that detention of respondent was not in accordance with law – cross appeal on behalf of detainee against order of High Court (Hogan J) on July 8, 2012 granting stay on order for release until 5pm on the July 10, 2012 - Art 40.4.2 of Constitution - ss.4(5)(c) and 4(6) of Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 - detainee alleged to have seriously assaulted and caused death of fellow patient at Tallaght Hospital - initially remanded by District Court to Cloverhill Prison - transferred to Central Mental Hospital in accordance with s.15 of Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 as he was suffering from mental disorder for which he could not get appropriate care in prison - Central Criminal Court (Carney J) held pursuant to s.4(5)(c)(i) of 2006 that respondent was unfit to be tried and should be detained in Central Mental Hospital - detainee brought application pursuant to Art 40 – High Court determined that detention was not in accordance with the law and stayed order to enable authorities to take such steps to ensure that from that time and date his custody was lawful - constitutional right not to be deprived of liberty save in due course of law - whether High Court had jurisdiction to conduct Art 40.4.2 inquiry into lawfulness of detention ordered by Central Criminal Court - whether High Court, satisfied that detention was unlawful, was permitted to place stay upon the order for release - whether s.4(5) of 2006 Act, as amended, required Central Criminal Court, once satisfied that accused was unfit to be tried, to adjourn proceedings to consider evidence of approved medical officer adduced pursuant to s.4(6)(b) of 2006 Act - whether decision of review board dated April 27, 2012 replaced order of Central Criminal Court dated March 26, 2012 as the basis of continued detention.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
