Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Heffernan [2017] IESC 5 (07 February 2017)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Heffernan [2017] IESC 5 (07 February 2017)

The Supreme Court held that s.6(2) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 requires the accused to establish the defence of diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities. The use of the word 'establish' imports a persuasive burden, consistent with the approach to the insanity defence. The imposition of this burden does not violate the Constitution or the presumption of innocence, as it is a special defence and justified by policy considerations. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2017] IESC 5
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Appellant: Joseph Heffernan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Diminished Responsibility, Insanity Defence, Statutory Interpretation, Presumption of Innocence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Burden of Proof Diminished Responsibility Insanity Defence Statutory Interpretation Presumption of Innocence

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 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

Joseph Heffernan

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct burden and standard of proof for the defence of diminished responsibility under s.6(2) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006?
  2. 2 Does the requirement that the accused 'establish' diminished responsibility impose a persuasive burden or merely an evidential burden?
  3. 3 Is the reverse onus compatible with the Constitution and the presumption of innocence?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that s.6(2) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 requires the accused to establish the defence of diminished responsibility on the balance of probabilities. The use of the word 'establish' imports a persuasive burden, consistent with the approach to the insanity defence. The imposition of this burden does not violate the Constitution or the presumption of innocence, as it is a special defence and justified by policy considerations. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. The conviction for murder stands.