The High Court quashed a Circuit Court ruling that refused an applicant permission to withdraw her guilty plea, finding that the refusal did not accord with her constitutional right to a fair trial. The ruling concerned the decision on her request to change her plea, not the underlying assault charge or her guilt or innocence.
The applicant, identified in the judgment as E.R., had been prosecuted with a co-accused for assault and cruelty offences involving her four-year-old son. The assault was alleged to have caused life-threatening injuries in 2010. The applicant said her son had fallen shortly before the incident. The judgment recounts prosecution medical evidence that the injuries were non-accidental; those allegations were not determined by the High Court in this judicial review.
During the retrial, after medical evidence and other rulings, the trial judge told the parties that a guilty plea to a count acceptable to the prosecution would probably allow a non-custodial outcome, while a conviction by a jury could make a custodial sentence difficult to avoid. He qualified his comments, saying they might be of academic interest and that he was not prejudging sentence. The applicant and her co-accused pleaded guilty to the serious assault count the following day.
In November 2016, the applicant asked to withdraw her plea. She testified that she pleaded guilty because she feared prison and understood the judge’s comments to present a choice between a non-custodial sentence on a plea and a likely custodial sentence if convicted after trial. She had consulted her legal team during the intervening period. The Circuit Court judge refused the request, finding there was no evidence that her will had been overborne and noting the time and legal advice available to her.
The High Court said the Circuit Court judge had fairly heard evidence and submissions, but faced the unusual task of deciding whether the applicant had been pressured by his own unsolicited intervention. It found that the judge needed to exercise particular care in those circumstances. The applicant’s plea followed a concrete indication by the trial judge, and legal advice did not remove the stark choice she understood herself to face.
Justice Faherty held that the Circuit Court ruling did not give due regard to the applicant’s fair-trial right under Article 38 of the Constitution. The court granted certiorari, quashing the 22 November 2016 order refusing permission to withdraw the plea. The judgment did not itself set out a retrial order or decide the underlying charges.