Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

does Diminished Responsibility exist in Ireland?

Options
  • 25-06-2011 3:49pm
    #1
    legaleagle10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭


    Just wondering if diminished responsibility actually exists in Ireland? For the the reading that i've done on it its saying it doesnt -I would of thought in Irish law all we should be concerned with in this respect is Insanity/automatism & McNaughten rules? whats the difference between DR and insanity?
    The SC is supposed to have rejected that DR exists in Irish Law in The People (DPP) v O' Mahony. Then on another website i found ...
    " If a person is suffering from a mental disorder, they may be considered unfit to be tried at the start of the trial..... In murder cases, the concept of diminished responsibility may be used to substitute a verdict of manslaughter."[in Irish Law]

    How is this if other cases and books are saying Ireland doesnt have DR?:confused: Confused.com

    Can anyone clear this up for me?

    Thanks


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    skyhighflyer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭skyhighflyer


    I believe it was introduced in the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.


  • Options
    #3
    legaleagle10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭legaleagle10


    ahh i see, will take a look at that, was reading Charlton and McDermott from college days so maybe be its out of date or something..thanks for reply
    skyhighflyer wrote: »
    I believe it was introduced in the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006.


  • Options
    #4
    skyhighflyer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭skyhighflyer


    legaleagle10 wrote: »
    ahh i see, will take a look at that, was reading Charlton and McDermott from college days so maybe be its out of date or something..thanks for reply

    Yeah I would double check the legislation directory to make sure the section is in force but I'm 99% that I've heard of decided cases under the Act.


  • Options
    #5
    legaleagle10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭legaleagle10


    no, you're right its section 6 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Bill 2006. I have no post 2006 cases though? its difficult to deferenciate between what constitues trying someone for insanity as opposed to Insanity?
    skyhighflyer wrote: »
    Yeah I would double check the legislation directory to make sure the section is in force but I'm 99% that I've heard of decided cases under the Act.


  • Options
    #6
    skyhighflyer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭skyhighflyer


    DPP -v- Leigh Crowe [2009] IECCA 57


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,290 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    legaleagle10 wrote: »
    its difficult to deferenciate between what constitues trying someone for insanity as opposed to Insanity?

    1. Huh?
    2. Insanity isn't an offence.


  • Options
    #8
    bath handle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 370 ✭✭bath handle


    Victor wrote: »
    legaleagle10 wrote: »
    its difficult to deferenciate between what constitues trying someone for insanity as opposed to Insanity?

    1. Huh?
    2. Insanity isn't an offence.
    There are 2 distinct situations where insanity us relevant.

    1. Fitness to plead.
    2. As a defence at trial.

    The first is a trial about a trial where it has to be decided whether the defendant understands what is going on and is Capable of instructing lawyers.

    The second is raised as a defence at trial and the jury must decide whether the defendant committed a crime at all an if so was he legally as opposed to medically insane at the time.


  • Options
    #9
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,290 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    I still don't think legaleagle10's sentence makes much sense. :)


  • Options
    #10
    legaleagle10
    Closed Accounts Posts: 136 ✭✭legaleagle10


    apologies what I actually meant to type was its difficult to deferenciate using the defence of insanity or diminished responsibilty, at the time I didnt know how to tell the two apart.
    Victor wrote: »
    1. Huh?
    2. Insanity isn't an offence.


Advertisement