There were 205 reviews of 94 patients detained at the CMH under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act last year
THERE WAS AN increase of 22 per cent in the number of reviews carried out during 2010 of patients detained in the Central Mental Hospital.
The annual report of the Mental Health (Criminal Law) Review Board has disclosed some 205 reviews took place during the year, involving a total of 94 patients. It is chaired by High Court Judge Brian McCracken.
The board’s function is to review the continued detention of patients in the CMH under the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006. The board is obliged under the Act to review each patient at intervals of no longer than six months.
Some patients, who were in the CMH at the time of the board’s foundation in 2006, were therefore reviewed for the ninth, 10 and 11th time last year.
There was one unconditional discharge ordered by the board in 2010, of a man in his 60s.
“The board determined the patient was no longer in need of treatment in that hospital and it was no longer necessary for the patient to be detained.”
The report states that the number of patients detained in the CMH at any one time is about 80, but points out that the number varies as patients are transferred to and from prison.
Of the 94 reviewed last year, the majority (almost 70 per cent) were suffering from schizophrenia; 16 per cent from schizoaffective disorder; and the remaining 15 per cent were diagnosed with other disorders including bi-polar affective disorder, drug-induced psychosis and intellectual disability.
The majority of reviews of detentions were of patients committed to the CMH having been found not guilty by reason of insanity.
There were ongoing legal proceedings in two cases where patients challenged their continued detention in the Courts. A third case, an application for habeas corpus, was rejected in the High Court on the basis that the patient’s detention was lawful.
In his foreword, Mr Justice McCracken welcomed the enactment of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2010 by the Oireachtas in December.
“The board previously expressed concerns that legislation to provide for the enforceability of conditions of discharge had not been enacted.”
He said the absence of this safeguard meant the board had to curtail some considerations in relation to discharge because it could not impose conditions.
“Before an order can be made to discharge a patient, arrangements are in place to facilitate the patient in complying with the conditions, to supervise the patient and that provision is made for the return of the patient to the CMH .”
Mr Justice McCracken said the majority of patients detained under the Act in the hospital are not yet suitable for discharge. However, he said: “There are a number of patients whom the board will now actively consider for discharge subject to enforceable conditions.”
