Judge tells court troubled boy could die if freed

A high Court judge has warned that in a fortnight he will have to release a troubled boy on to the streets, where the child faced "possible death" unless some accommodation other than prison was provided.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday told the State and the Eastern Health Board, which has statutory responsibility for the boy's welfare, he had no authority to direct preventive detention at St Patrick's Institution.

The 17-year-old, who is neither convicted nor on remand, was detained in St Patrick's five weeks ago on foot of a court order because there was no suitable place for him. Yesterday the judge was told the situation was unchanged.

Mr Justice Kelly said the boy had successfully completed a detoxification programme at St Patrick's but all the evidence suggested a psychological dependence on drugs.

It seemed that, if the child was freed, he would return to serious drug abuse in the short term "and for all I know, may kill himself".

In these circumstances, he had to decide whether to return the boy to St Patrick's, "bad and all as it is", or free him to the streets where he could kill himself. St Patrick's, being a penal institution, was the very last resort and must be short-term.

He had hoped in vain that a plan would have been assembled to accommodate the boy. He was not criticising the EHB or the State. The boy had done nothing to help himself.

The judge said he had no option but to return the boy to St Patrick's, but he could not stay there longer than 14 days. The matter was the EHB's statutory responsibility. If there was no plan, he would have to free the child, "a horrible prospect".

He was told the boy's solicitor, Mr Pol O Murchu, would urge on him the necessity of co-operating with the efforts to find accommodation.

Earlier, in submissions, Mr Gerry Durcan SC, for the boy, accepted his client had been uncooperative. But, counsel argued, this had its origins in the loss of "a crucial window of opportunity" last summer when the boy had been doing well in a remand centre but no suitable follow-up placement had been arranged.

Mr Durcan said the court had previously said St Patrick's could never be more than a short-term option. He feared that if the situation was let run, the boy could remain there for a long period. He had previously been sent to a remand centre on the understanding that he remain there for just weeks but had ended up there for more than a year. That situation must not recur, and there could be no slippage into preventive detention.

Mr Patrick MacEntee SC, for the EHB, said the board had made every effort to find somewhere for the boy, even suggesting a placement abroad, and would go on looking. But, without the boy's co-operation, it could do little. It could not wave a magic wand. In principle, the board would not say he should be in prison, but it had no alternative.

Mr John O'Donnell, for the State, said a particular State-run remand centre, which Mr Durcan had suggested as an option for the boy, was unwilling to take him. The boy had a history of assaults, and the centre was concerned about the effect on its operation.