The Court of Appeal has allowed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal and quashed a High Court order that had set aside a trial judge’s refusal to let a woman withdraw her guilty plea. The Court of Appeal held that she had sought judicial review before the criminal proceedings had concluded and had not used the appropriate alternative remedy.
The case arose during the 2016 trial of the respondent and a co-accused in Nenagh Circuit Court. She faced charges of assault causing serious harm, assault causing harm and cruelty to children, arising from injuries her four-year-old son sustained in July 2010. The judgment says the child was admitted to hospital with internal bleeding and life-threatening injuries. She had pleaded not guilty and claimed the injuries resulted from a fall.
After several rulings against the defence and shortly before the child was due to give evidence, the trial judge made comments about sentencing. He said he could probably deal with the matter without custody if a guilty plea were entered on at least one count, while a conviction after trial would make a custodial sentence difficult to avoid. The next day, the respondent pleaded guilty. She later sought to withdraw the plea, arguing that the comments had placed her under unfair pressure and that her plea was not free and voluntary. The trial judge refused her application after a hearing.
The High Court granted certiorari, finding that the judge’s comments had led directly to the plea and that the respondent’s right to a fair trial had been compromised. The DPP appealed. The respondent argued that the High Court was entitled to intervene because the trial judge had applied the wrong test to whether her will had been overborne.
The Court of Appeal said judicial review should almost never interrupt a criminal trial before it has concluded. It held that the High Court had applied the wrong test: judicial review examines whether a decision was lawful, rather than deciding whether it was correct. The hearing on the application to withdraw the plea had been fair, and irrationality had not been pleaded. The Court of Appeal said the trial should have proceeded to sentence, after which the respondent could consider an appeal.
The court allowed the DPP’s appeal on prematurity and the failure to use the appropriate alternative remedy. It quashed the certiorari order and said it was unnecessary to decide the other grounds of appeal. The judgment does not determine the respondent’s guilt or sentence her.