About this case:

• Citation:
  [2022] IECA 239
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh

Delivering judgment in the case, Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh held that the evidence fell far short of what was required for a successful application to quash a conviction. The evidence suggested that there was a low possibility that the man was actually suffering from a schizophrenic episode, while other aspects of the case were readily distinguishable cases such as The People (DPP) v. Abdi [2019] IECA 38.

Background

In September 2012, the applicant entered the home of Eugene Gillespie in Sligo to commit a burglary. Unfortunately, the applicant met Mr Gillespie and attacked him. Mr Gillespie suffered “a serious degree of violence” and was left tied up in the house. The applicant rang the emergency services the next day to let them know that Mr Gillespie was there.

Mr Gillespie was found the following day and died from his injuries in hospital. He had suffered a brain bleed, a skull fracture and a fractured jaw. He also had very significant hand injuries due to being restrained.

On learning of the victim’s death, the applicant voluntarily surrendered to gardaí, maintaining that it was wrong to take a life and he did not intend it to happen. He was charged with murder, burglary and false imprisonment. He entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter but the jury determined that he was guilty of murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in respect of the murder.

No issue of insanity or diminished responsibility were raised during the trial or in the applicant’s appeal. The applicant was a man who had a severe drug and alcohol dependency at the time of the crimes. He smoked up to 20 joints of cannabis a day, drank large quantities of alcohol and used diazepam on a daily basis. He also used cocaine, ecstasy, heroin and benzodiazepines at various stages of life.

Prior to 2017, the applicant complained of “persecutory auditory hallucinations” and presented himself to mental health services. However, doctors did not think this represented psychotic illness. In 2017, the applicant was diagnosed with schizophrenia. He presented with “chronic delusional ideas that he is possessed and controlled by an HSE psychologist operating from outside the prison”.

Subsequently, the solicitors for the applicant instructed a consultant forensic psychiatrist to examine the applicant’s health history to see if he was operating under a psychosis at the time of the attack. A first report issued in June 2020, in which the doctor reviewed all clinical records from 2011.

The doctor concluded that it was possible that the applicant was suffering from schizophrenic psychosis at the time of the offence but it was “difficult to establish any causal nexus between mental illness and his behaviour at the material time”. Further, it was determined that the applicant acted in a “series of goal directed behaviour” regarding the incident and there was “little evidence to support the presence of active symptoms of psychotic illness in the days after the assault”.

Counsel then raised seven questions on foot of the report and the doctor provided a second report in August 2020. It was stated that the applicant was very likely intoxicated at the time and it was probable that he was experiencing psychosis, but the degree and severity could not be conclusively determined. It was also noted that the relationship with drug use and schizophrenia was complex, but that the applicant could have been diagnosed with schizophrenia prior to the murders based on his medical records.

High Court

In light of the medical reports, the applicant’s solicitor brought an application pursuant to section 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1993 seeking to quash the convictions on the grounds of newly discovered facts. Essentially, the applicant sought to follow the decision in Abdi, where a post-conviction diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia led to the quashing of his conviction.

Following a detailed recitation of the facts and of the key decisions in Abdi and The People (DPP) v. Kelly [2008] 3 I.R. 697, the court held that this case was not about newly discovered medical records or that the applicant’s alcohol/drug dependency issues were not reasonably known at trial. Instead, all this information was available at the time of the trial but no issues were raised in respect of same.

Moreover, there were key differences between the present case and the Abdi case, including that the prosecuting expert changed his mind and the issue of mental illness was raised in those proceedings. Further, it was noted that, in general, “attempts to persuade the Court with expert evidence that a retrospective diagnosis can be made such that the conviction should be quashed must be treated with considerable caution, and such cases will be exceptional”.

The court noted that insanity and diminished responsibility were not mentioned in the present case, so the basis of the application was unclear. Additionally, the doctor’s reports put the likelihood of the applicant being in the throws of schizophrenia at the time of the offences at a low level and there were significant questions of causal connection between the schizophrenia and the crimes.

The court also commented that the questions asked by the legal advisors to the doctor were unusual and some of the questions appeared to be leading in nature. However, leaving this aside, the contents of the reports fell short of establishing “substantial impairment” regarding the involuntary intoxication of the applicant.

The court also placed emphasis on the fact that the applicant’s legal advisors did not raise the issue of diminished responsibility at the time of trial. The court also point to the rational purpose of the applicant’s crime, which was to burgle the victim to buy drugs.

Conclusion

In light of the circumstances of the case, the court dismissed the application to quash the convictions.

The People at the Suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. McGinley [2022] IECA 239