A "grossly improper" remark relating to an insanity defence in a murder trial was made by Mr Patrick MacEntee SC as a "final push" to make an "unwilling client" plead guilty to murder, it was claimed at the Court of Criminal Appeal yesterday.
Mr Dara Robinson, solicitor, said he rejected and resented such a suggestion by Mr Nicholas Han na QC, for Paul Lynch (22) of Ballybrollaghan, Frosses, Co Don egal, who is serving a life sentence for murder. He said that he, as Lynch's solicitor, and Mr MacEntee, who acted for Lynch up the time of his conviction in February 1997, outlined all the options available to him. Yesterday was the third day of Lynch's appeal against his conviction for the murder of Mr William Campbell (77) in the course of a robbery at his home at Drumard, Co Donegal, in September 1995.
Lynch pleaded guilty at the Central Criminal Court in February 1997 to murder and was jailed for life. He claims he was put under improper pressure by his lawyers to plead guilty.
In court yesterday, Mr Patrick Gageby SC, for the DPP, said as a result of a number of matters raised during the appeal, he would be calling Mr MacEntee to give evidence on Tuesday when the appeal resumes.
Mr Hanna said he was not making a root-and-branch attack on the handling of Lynch's case at the time. In many respects his lawyers had acted properly, but he was contending their judgment was wrong insofar as they did not give Lynch a free choice of pleading guilty or not guilty. Nor was he given the option of having the prosecution prove its case in circumstances where he need not give evidence or of pleading guilty to manslaughter.
There were pressures put on Lynch and while he was not saying an insanity defence should have been run - Lynch clearly did not want that - it did come into the matter in a certain way.
Mr Hanna suggested to Mr Robinson that Lynch was not told that remorse was an important factor in the life sentence review group's review of cases and a guilty plea would be to his advantage. Mr Robinson said he had a clear recollection that Lynch was so told. He agreed that whether a person pleaded guilty to murder or not, they would get the same mandatory life sentence if convicted and would also get a sentence review after seven years. Lynch was also told his relative youth, his admissions to the gardai, his public statement of sorrow to his local community and his guilty plea were facts on which the review group could advise that Lynch could be safely released.
Mr Hanna suggested the guilty plea was likely to make no difference with the review group as Lynch had admitted the acts which led to Mr Campbell's death before his guilty plea and had made a public statement of sorrow. Mr Robinson disagreed. His experience was that a guilty plea could significantly enhance Lynch's case.
He said all options were explained. There was a long discussion before the trial, on February 10th, 1997, at the end of which Lynch freely decided to plead guilty on the basis that the assault was not pre-planned but he accepted it was likely to lead to serious injury or death.
Mr Robinson said he could not remember the context where his case notes on Lynch referred to Mr MacEntee and the issue of insanity. His note on the issue was not full, did not make sense and the issue arose in the context of a lengthy discussion at the end of which Lynch accepted he was responsible for Mr Campbell's death but wanted the public to know it was not pre-planned.
Mr Hanna suggested Lynch was moving towards but still not actually pleading guilty when Mr MacEntee raised the point of an insanity defence with the knowledge that Lynch was horrified at that prospect. He suggested it was a "grossly improper" remark, made at a highly significant point in the consultation and a final push to have an unwilling client plead guilty by putting before him the spectre of a mental hospital.
Mr Robinson said he rejected and resented any such suggestion. He and Mr MacEntee were concerned that the case be disposed of in Lynch's best interest. He did not recall Mr MacEntee saying his advice did not come cheaply. It was a legal aid case. He believed Mr MacEntee told Lynch he was entitled to a second opinion. Mr Robinson denied that Lynch was not given a free choice to plead guilty or not guilty but was instead given the choice of pleading guilty to murder or guilty but insane. He was given the choice of pleading guilty or not guilty of murder and the option of having the prosecution prove its case in circumstances where Lynch would not have to give evidence.
Re-examined by Mr Gageby, Mr Robinson said Lynch had never expressed any dissatisfaction with his legal team or with Mr MacEntee's advice and never indicated any coercion.
