Woman with special needs applies to alter pleas of guilty
AN APPLICATION by a woman with special needs to vacate her pleas of guilty to giving false evidence in the Circuit Court and High Court in a personal injuries case has been refused.
Judge Tom O’Donnell said it is an extremely unusual application and only the second time that one has come before him.
The application was made by Pat Whyms BL, on behalf of the woman who cannot be named due to reporting restrictions.
John O’Sullivan BL, instructed by State Solicitor Padraig Mawe, opposed the application at Limerick Circuit Court.
Mr O’Sullivan said a personal injury case in relation to a road traffic incident in Limerick in 2015 was rejected in the Circuit Court. It was then appealed to the High Court, sitting in Ennis, where it was also rejected.
The court heard the woman is a person of special needs and was “intimidated” and “coerced” by a man referred to in court as Mr X.
Mr O’Sullivan said the woman was interviewed by gardai.
“She admitted she was not in the vehicle. She was charged with giving false evidence in the Circuit Court and High Court. She pleaded guilty to the two charges when she was arraigned in this court on May 16, 2022,” said Mr O’Sullivan.
Mr Whyms called two clinical psychologists, who carried out evaluations on the applicant, as witnesses.
Both men said she showed minimal understanding of the court system and expressed the opinion she was unfit to plead.
Answering questions from Mr O’Sullivan, they both said she had told them she had made false claims regarding being in the vehicle at the time of the road traffic collision.
Mr Whyms, in summing up, asked Judge O’Donnell to vacate his client’s pleas of guilty.
“It is at the discretion of a judge. On the occasion that she pleaded guilty she was not fit to plead. The balance of justice favours the application,” said Mr Whyms, who cited case law.
Mr O’Sullivan said exceptional circumstances are required to vacate a plea. He said from the tenor of the evidence of both expert witnesses there are grounds for substantial mitigation but it falls short of the threshold required to vacate a plea.
“She admitted making false claims. Yes, she did wrong while under pressure from a third party (Mr X) and was under an enormous amount of stress.
“There was no change of circumstances - she was instructed by the same counsel and solicitor at the time of the pleas. The balance of evidence is she understood the charges. It doesn’t mean that somebody who has cognitive difficulties doesn’t understand the charge. Her pleas of guilty were voluntary,” said Mr O’Sullivan.
Judge O’Donnell said it is an extremely unusual application and only the second time that one has come before him.
“I have listened very carefully to the doctors. I would have to say I am not convinced the pleas should be vacated,” said Judge O’Donnell.
The judge noted that one clinical psychologist saw her two years before she made the pleas and the second psychologist did his evaluation five months after she gave the pleas.
“From the reports I have, the accused understood what she did was wrong and admitted what she did was wrong. I don’t think there is enough evidence for her pleas of guilty to be vacated. I am going to refuse the application,” said Judge O’Donnell.
The applicant was remanded on continuing bail. The case was put into a call-over date in 2024.
Judge O’Donnell ordered that the woman’s name not be disclosed by media in attendance.