DPP -v- Redmond [2006] IESC 25 (06 April 2006)

DPP -v- Redmond [2006] IESC 25 (06 April 2006)

A trial judge does not have the power or duty to refuse to accept a guilty plea and substitute a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity solely because there are substantial grounds for believing the accused was insane at the time of the offence, where the accused is fit to plead and wishes to plead guilty. The accused is entitled to choose his plea, and insanity is a defence to be raised by the accused, not imposed by the court, except in the most exceptional circumstances which were not present here.

Citation
[2006] IESC 25
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Sean Redmond
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated (criminal) / Supreme Court Review of Consultative Case Stated From Circuit Court Under S.16 Courts of Justice Act, 1947
Outcome
Question in the case stated answered in the negative; trial judge not empowered to substitute plea.
Legal Topics
Insanity Defence, Fitness to Plead, Plea Procedure, Diminished Responsibility, Sentencing and Mental Disorder
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Criminal Procedure Insanity Defence Fitness to Plead Plea Procedure Diminished Responsibility Sentencing and Mental Disorder

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Sean Redmond

Accused

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated (criminal) / Supreme Court Review of Consultative Case Stated From Circuit Court Under S.16 Courts of Justice Act, 1947

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge has the power or duty to refuse to accept a guilty plea and substitute a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity where there are substantial grounds for believing the accused was insane at the time of the offence, despite the accused being fit to plead and wishing to plead guilty.

Ratio Decidendi

A trial judge does not have the power or duty to refuse to accept a guilty plea and substitute a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity solely because there are substantial grounds for believing the accused was insane at the time of the offence, where the accused is fit to plead and wishes to plead guilty. The accused is entitled to choose his plea, and insanity is a defence to be raised by the accused, not imposed by the court, except in the most exceptional circumstances which were not present here.

Court Disposition

Question in the case stated answered in the negative; trial judge not empowered to substitute plea.

Orders

  • The particular grounds for believing the accused was insane at the time of the offence do not empower the judge to decline to accept the plea of guilty.
  • The accused's plea of guilty stands; sentencing to proceed.