RM, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2024] UKSC 7 (21 February 2024)
Citation:RM, Re Application for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2024] UKSC 7 (21 February 2024)
Rule of thumb:If a person accused of a criminal offence successfully pleads insanity in bar of trial, so that they go to a secured psychiatric facility rather than prison, how does the sentencing work? The person is locked up indefinitely in solitary confinement & this is their base – depending on the advice of the treating psychiatrist they will have periods of ‘secured community’ release then return to solitary confinement.
Background facts: Subjects invoked: access to medical treatment; punishment & rehabilitation.
The facts of this case were that RM was a repeated sex-offender, but he was severely mentally impaired, so he pleaded insanity in bar of trial. The Court upheld the insanity in bar of trial plea that RM was not fit to face trial, and RM was declared to be insane. A jury found that RM had done the ‘actus reus’ of all of the crimes he was accused of doing. RM was sentenced to solitary confinement in a psychiatric hospital for an unlimited period until the Justice Department deemed that he was fit for release. After a year, medical evidence from RM’s treating psychiatrist stated that it would be in RM’s best interests for him to be released for some periods out of solitary into a secured community setting. RM wanted the community setting to be his base, with only a return to solitary if he misbehaved, but the Ministry of Justice opposed this position.
Court held: The Court upheld the arguments of the Justice Department. When a person pleads insanity in bar of trial they are given an unlimited detention period in solitary confinement in a psychiatric hospital. They are then given increased periods of ‘leave’ in the community setting, or decreased periods dependent on bad behaviour, but after the ‘leave’ they then return back to solitary confinement once the period is over. They then get further arrangements made for more secure community release if they behave well. It is not the case that they are in the community setting permanently & only go back to solitary if they misbehave in the community setting.
Ratio-decidendi:
77. ‘The same is true in relation to article 15. Since the assessment of whether the statutory conditions for detention continue to be met involves consideration of the least restrictive way of delivering ongoing medical treatment, it is entirely consistent with this consideration for the tribunal to have regard to the availability of treatment in the community by way of article 15 leave of absence. Article 15 leave should be viewed as part of a continuing responsive programme, during which the need for treatment in hospital and on leave is being reassessed depending upon the circumstances and the patient's response to treatment and testing. Accordingly, a tribunal can and should consider any proposal to grant article 15 leave as a means of assessing the patient's ability to manage his or her condition in the community and to test the plans that are likely to be put in place, if or when, the patient leaves hospital.
78. Importantly, the fact that article 15 leave is planned does not necessarily mean that the patient's mental disorder no longer warrants detention in hospital for treatment. Treatment received in detention may have suppressed symptoms or behaviours deriving from the mental disorder. Article 15 leave is simply a means of managing risk and testing whether the treatment so far provided to the patient (and/or any ongoing medication regime to be maintained outside hospital) has sufficiently alleviated the disorder and/or its symptoms so that the medical disorder no longer necessitates detention.
79. It follows that, for the purpose of applying article 77(1) as it is incorporated into article 78(1)(a), a period of leave under article 15 of the 1986 Order can be regarded as detention in hospital for medical treatment so that the expectation of the patient being granted such leave is entirely consistent with a decision of the tribunal that it is not satisfied as to the matter set out in article 77(1)(a)…
82. For all these reasons, I would allow the appeal and restore the decision of the review tribunal that the statutory test for detention in hospital for medical treatment was met notwithstanding the responsible medical officer's decision that RM should reside on a long-term basis in a community setting, initially on article 15 leave’.
Lady Simler
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.