The Health Service Executive (HSE) Sligo/Leitrim Mental Health Services have acknowledged in the High Court “shortcomings” in the care of the assailant of a young Sligo man who died after being attacked at his home.
Jimmy Loughlin (20) was killed in his rented home at Connolly Street, Sligo, on February 24th, 2018, when the stranger, Richard McLaughlin, attacked him with a crowbar.
In July 2019, at the Central Criminal Court, Mr McLaughlin (35), with an address at The Laurels, Woodtown Lodge, Sligo, was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the murder of Mr Loughlin.
At the High Court on Tuesday, a representative of the clinical and management team at the HSE Sligo/Leitrim Mental Health Services “sincerely and unreservedly” apologised to Mr Loughlin’s parents for the “breaches of duty in the care provided”, which it acknowledged and accepts led to “untold upset, distress and harm” to them and their family.
Christmas TV and movie guide: the best shows and films to watch
Laura Kennedy: We like the ideal of Christmas. The reality, though, is often strained, sad and weird
How Britain’s prison system is teetering on the brink of collapse
Fostering at Christmas: ‘We once had two boys, age 9 and 11, who had never had a Christmas tree’
The service wished to “acknowledge the shortcomings in the care of Jimmy’s assailant, Richard McLoughlin, as were highlighted at the inquest into Jimmy’s death, together with the verdict of unlawful killing rendered by the jury”.
Mr Loughlin’s parents, Michael and Paula Loughlin, of Ballintogher, sued the HSE over the care provided prior to the unprovoked fatal attack on their only son while he was getting ready for work on February 24th, 2018.
Their counsel, Eoin McCullough SC, instructed by Damien Tansey SC of Damien Tansey Solicitors, told the High Court the Loughlins’ case against the HSE has been settled.
Mr Justice Paul Coffey expressed his “deepest sympathy” to Mr and Ms Loughlin.
Outside the Four Courts, Mr and Mc Loughlin said in a statement that the HSE should today “hang its head in shame”.
“On the day our son Jimmy’s life was taken over five years ago all our lives ended. To add insult to grievous injury, the coroner’s inquest found he was unlawfully killed and established shortcomings by the HSE in the management of Jimmy’s assailant,” they said.
Jimmy was a “son to whom so much was promised and yet everything was taken”, they said, adding: “Unfortunately, no apology will now bring our son back to his loving family.”
Mr Loughlin’s inquest in May 2022 heard a consultant forensic psychiatrist attached to the Central Mental Hospital found Mr McLaughlin was schizophrenic and had started drinking and smoking cannabis at age 11 or 12. Mr McLaughlin admitted to having used Ecstasy and cocaine but told the psychiatrist he had given them up some years ago.
The inquest jury returned a verdict of unlawful killing, finding Mr Loughlin died due to traumatic head injuries from the assault.
In their High Court action seeking damages for personal injuries suffered, the Loughlins alleged the assailant was a patient of the defendants and was known to them as a person with a history of mental illness and violent tendencies.
Mr McLaughlin has been known to and/or in the HSE’s care for an extended period of time, they claimed. He was first referred to the adult mental health service in 2008 and has been re-referred for paranoid ideation, paranoid schizophrenia and drug-induced psychosis on several occasions since, they alleged.
The HSE, the Loughlins claimed, has “at all times” been aware that Mr McLaughlin has a sustained history of episodes of violent behaviour.
It failed, omitted and/or neglected to take adequate steps to avoid the “real and present risk” to people living in proximity to Mr McLaughlin, they alleged.
The assailant consistently missed scheduled appointments and ceased taking medication for his mental illness, they claimed. The HSE failed to maintain him in its care notwithstanding their knowledge or notice that he was acting in a suspicious and paranoid manner, they alleged.
Liability was at issue in the case.
