A disturbed 16-year-old boy with psychiatric and psychological difficulties who was recently attacked while detained in St Patrick's Institution was returned there by a High Court judge yesterday because of the lack of a suitable alternative.
Ms Justice McGuinness said she was placed in an "unbearable dilemma" regarding the boy's case. She had placed him in St Patrick's on July 29th, not because he was an offender, but for his own protection, having heard medical evidence that while he was not psychiatrically ill, he had psychiatric and psychological difficulties.
After being put in St Patrick's because no alternative was offered, the boy was left until he was physically attacked, the judge said. The authorities at St Patrick's were doing their very best but there had to be a risk this could happen again.
She adjourned the matter for November 2nd, by which point, she urged, something must be provided for the boy.
In deciding where the boy should be sent, the judge noted medical opinion that he was marginally better off in a specific State remand centre where he had been detained previously. But no place was available. However, she had heard evidence from a representative of the centre that it could not meet the boy's needs. On the other hand, St Patrick's was also unsuitable.
The judge said she had made an order last July that the boy be detained at St Patrick's for a short time to allow other arrangements be put in place for him. But there was nothing in this jurisdiction comparable to a special hospital in the UK.
She said the boy was almost 17 years old and medical opinion was that there was only a small window of opportunity left to help him and prevent his being involved in criminal offences for the rest of his life and other difficulties, such as drug addiction.
Nothing seems to be offered as an alternative by either the EHB or the State at this point, she said.
She was told that, if she were to make an order sending the boy to St Patrick's, the authorities there would have to free others held in the prison, on foot of court orders, to make room for him.
From a common-sense point of view, and for the good of those held in the State remand centre referred to, she should also not make an order to send him to the centre.
But, the judge said, she had been told the Supreme Court has made certain decisions which she was bound by. These stipulated a child could be held in St Patrick's Institution for a short time. Until the Supreme Court changed its mind, which was possible if such a situation as obtained in the present case was put to it, she felt bound to follow that decision.
Ms Justice McGuinness said it did not seem to her that the transfer of the boy to the State remand centre was in any way a good solution. It probably encroached on his constitutional rights but she could not see what else she could do in the circumstances.
She was forced to leave in place the order detaining the boy in St Patrick's until a bed became available for him in the remand centre, the judge said. When a bed became available, he was to be sent to the centre, with all the undesirable results of that and with very little good for him.
She added it was absolutely essential that the EHB have a case conference on the boy of the kind suggested by its counsel so some alternative accommodation could be found.