is there "equivocal plea" in irish criminal law?

Ineedtoknowit

Hi everyone,
I was just wondering is there such a thing as "equivocal plea" in irish criminal law, I have seen it mentioned on Uk sites but couldn't find anything about it in ireland.

Thanks, really need to know this .

hullaballoo

An equivocal plea is just a plea that is contradictory. It doesn't have any specific legal status, function or purpose.

In most cases, it's tantamount to a plea of not guilty. If it's treated as a guilty plea by the trial court, an appellate court can vacate the entry of the plea and remit the matter for re-trial on the basis of a not guilty plea.

For anyone reading and wondering what tf is happening, an equivocal plea is along the lines, "guilty, but..." e.g. "I plead guilty because it's easier than trying to fight this..." or "guilty but I did it in self-defence" etc.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Claw Hammer

Anyone who tries that is usually forced to plead and make their excuse part of the mitigation or else plead not guilty and run their defence. It would be very rare for a trial court to proceed without clarity as to the plea.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Claw Hammer

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They don't have to explain why they pleaded but the can offer a plea in mitigation, explaining why or how they committed the crime.

Peregrinus

What Claw Hammer said. Plus, a judge can always ask the defendant questions about the motivation for the plea, to make sure he understands what the plea means and what its consequences will be. He won't normally do this where the defendant has legal representation, since the defendant's own lawyer is supposed to have done it, but he can.

Ineedtoknowit

Ok, thanks to all repliers.

So if someone has done something that has technically broken the law, and there is evidence to prove this has happened, there is no point in pleading not guilty?

But although this is so, they did it with good intentions, and this would be put towards the mitigating factors?

Peregrinus

Ineedtoknowit wrote: »

Ok, thanks to all repliers.

So if someone has done something that has technically broken the law, and there is evidence to prove this has happened, there is no point in pleading not guilty?

Well, there may be. What do you mean by "has done something that has technically broken the law"? Most offences contain a mental element; you have to a particular intention or state of mind in order to commit the offence, so if "technically" means "he did the various actions that amount to the offence, but his intention or mental state was quite different" then there may well be mileage in a "not guilty' plea.

Or, you can always plead not guilty in the hope that the prosecution will stuff up its proofs and you'll be acquitted. It doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Claw Hammer

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Necessity is not a statutory defence. It may succeed in some cases in Ireland. It is generally described as duress of circumstances. If a person thinks an offence is available they would plead not guilty and run the defence. The equivocal or half plea is usually where there is no defence available but there is some understandable excuse. "I had only bought the car and was getting used to the controls when I went over the speed limit and there was nobody around except for the guards hiding behind a bush and their detection equipment is useless anyway and I probably was only doing half the speed they claim but I can't prove it."

seamus

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Anyone who tries that is usually forced to plead and make their excuse part of the mitigation or else plead not guilty and run their defence. It would be very rare for a trial court to proceed without clarity as to the plea.

What if a defendant was to plead guilty, but in mitigation make the claim that, "I don't believe I'm guilty, but I have kids and a job to get to, and don't have the time or money to fight this, so a guilty plea is the quickest way to get this over and done with" ?

Is it important for the judicial process that a defendant accepts, partially or wholly, that they are guilty, when they plead guilty?

Would a judge insist - where he/she doesn't feel the defendant is "contrite" - that a trial be entered into in spite of a guilty plea?

4ensic15

seamus wrote: »

What if a defendant was to plead guilty, but in mitigation make the claim that, "I don't believe I'm guilty, but I have kids and a job to get to, and don't have the time or money to fight this, so a guilty plea is the quickest way to get this over and done with" ?

Is it important for the judicial process that a defendant accepts, partially or wholly, that they are guilty, when they plead guilty?

Would a judge insist - where he/she doesn't feel the defendant is "contrite" - that a trial be entered into in spite of a guilty plea?

Once a guilty plea is entered the possibility of having had a good defence is not relevant. The judge takes the usual factors into account in arriving a sentence.

Once a guilty plea is entered there will be not trial. There is no need. Remorse or the lack of it is a relevant factor in sentencing. A guilty plea with no show of remorse will attract a higher tariff than a guilty plea and a genuine show of remorse.