Questioning character in court

magpie

Looking through the reports on the dismissal of Sean Mackey's appeal on the Anabels sentence the issue of the fact that his defence team had called into question the character of the deseased (Murphy) was again mentioned as a viable reason why Mackey was given 2 years, whereas Desmond Ryan's team did not and he only received 9 months. While other factors influenced sentencing this is one that was brought up again.

Is there any legal precedent for this?

Is it not a standard part of a defence team's job to try and discredit the opposition? Or are you not allowed to speak ill of the dead?

I'm slightly baffled by this.

Victor

He effectively said "I didn't do it, but he was a bad person anyway.", but was convicted which is worse than "I didn't do it." which is worse than "I did do it, but he was a bad person anyway, please have sympathy on me" and attracts appropriate sentencing.

magpie

I could understand the logic if you were 12 and in front of the headmaster, but it seems like a very catholic mea culpa scenario for a court of law. Is there anything equivalent in Britain, or the continent?