Judge cannot refuse plea, says Supreme Court

A judge cannot refuse to accept a plea of guilty of causing serious harm because of the judge's own view that the accused was insane at the time of the offence, the Supreme Court has ruled by a four- to-one majority.

However, in a dissenting judgment, Ms Justice Susan Denham said the trial judge was being asked to collude in a situation where he had substantial grounds for believing there was no crime and was consequently being asked to "support a sham".

A judge's duties included conducting trials in a fair and just manner and protecting the dignity of persons and, in her view, a judge may take the steps necessary to prevent court proceedings from being a sham.

"The question is whether it is appropriate for the learned trial judge to treat as a criminal, to categorise as a criminal and sentence as a criminal a person who he has substantial grounds for believing is not a criminal," she said.

The five-judge court yesterday delivered its decision on a legal issue raised by then Circuit Court judge Kevin Haugh in the case of Seán Redmond, who pleaded guilty to causing serious harm to Liam Humbar, a patient at St Mary's psychiatric hospital, Castlebar, iNovember 2002. Mr Redmond, who also has a psychiatric history, was attending the hospital on that date.

The majority court found that Judge Haugh must accept Redmond's plea. It also held that despite the absence of an offence of "diminished responsibility" in law, a judge may take into account diminished responsibility when sentencing.

In yet another criticism by the courts of the law on insanity, Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan said the entire law was "anomalous and requires reform" and the court should not fashion any principles flowing from that anomaly.

It was alleged that Redmond attacked Mr Humbar with a knife and that the attack was unprovoked and witnessed. Redmond told a psychiatrist that same day that he had heard voices telling him to "get them" and that his attack was in response to the voices.

When Redmond was arraigned in July 2003 before Judge Harvey Kenny on a charge of causing serious harm to Mr Humbar, he pleaded guilty. The matter later came before Judge Haugh for sentencing. After reading medical reports, Judge Haugh queried if he had jurisdiction to raise an issue relating to the guilty plea if, having considered the evidence, he had substantial grounds for believing Redmond may have been legally insane when the acts were allegedly committed.

The matter was referred to the Supreme Court.

Mr Justice Geoghegan said the most important fact was that when Redmond pleaded guilty, it was not contested that he was then fit to plead. Issues of insanity were to be tried by juries, not by judges. Redmond had decided to plead guilty, no one was suggesting he was not fit to plead nor was there any certainty that he would have been legally insane at the time of the offences.

In those circumstances, it was difficult to see how Redmond could be forced to alter his plea.

Judge Haugh had elicited that the guilty plea was tactical in that Redmond did not want to be sent to a mental hospital indefinitely rather than have a fixed short-term prison sentence at most.

Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns said there would have to be exceptional circumstances before a judge could intervene to "second guess" an accused and his legal or medical advisers.