G. -v- District Judge Murphy & Ors [2011] IEHC 445 (08 December 2011)

G. -v- District Judge Murphy & Ors [2011] IEHC 445 (08 December 2011)

The legislative scheme under s. 4(3)(a) and s. 4(4)(a) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 creates unconstitutional inequality by depriving accused persons whose fitness to plead is in doubt of the opportunity for summary disposal and lower sentencing in the District Court, violating Article 40.1. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 445
Parties
Applicant: B. G.; Respondent: District Judge Catherine Murphy; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Judges of the Dublin Circuit Court (No.2); Notice Parties: Ireland and the Attorney General; Amicus Curiae: Irish Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
08 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted
Legal Topics
Fitness to Plead, Equality Before the Law, Sentencing, Legislative Omission, Remedies for Unconstitutional Legislation
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Fitness to Plead Equality Before the Law Sentencing Legislative Omission Remedies for Unconstitutional Legislation

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 36 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. G.

Applicant

District Judge Catherine Murphy

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Judges of the Dublin Circuit Court (No.2)

Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Notice Parties

Irish Human Rights Commission

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 4(3)(a) and s. 4(4)(a) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 create unconstitutional discrimination by depriving accused persons whose fitness to plead is in doubt of the opportunity for summary disposal and lower sentencing
  2. 2 Whether the constitutional challenge is premature
  3. 3 What remedy is appropriate for an unconstitutional legislative omission

Ratio Decidendi

The legislative scheme under s. 4(3)(a) and s. 4(4)(a) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 creates unconstitutional inequality by depriving accused persons whose fitness to plead is in doubt of the opportunity for summary disposal and lower sentencing in the District Court, violating Article 40.1. The appropriate remedy is a declaration that the Circuit Court sentencing judge cannot impose a maximum sentence greater than that available in the District Court had the applicant's fitness to plead been established and he pleaded guilty there.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted

Orders

  • Declaration that if the applicant is found fit to plead and pleads guilty in the Circuit Court, the sentencing judge cannot impose a maximum sentence greater than that available in the District Court had fitness to plead been established and a guilty plea entered there.