User:Terrier123454321/sandbox

DPP v Heffernan, [2016 IESCDET 32 ] is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the court held that the word "establish" in s6(2) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act 2006 requires a person who has been accused of murder to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they were suffering from a mental disorder at the time the offence was committed, which justifies that person being found not guilty of murder by reason of diminished responsibility. The court ruled that the policy considerations justifying the use of the balance of probabilities standard for a defendant when he raises the defence of insanity also apply when the partial defence of diminished responsibility is raised as "both are intrinsically subjective defences and the prosecution would face the same difficulties in disproving both."

(You do not have to add the table of contents; Wikipedia does this automatically.)

Background
The appellant was accused of the murder of Eoin Ryan in Ennis, Co. Clare on the 7th June 2011. The appellant was convicted of the said murder in the Central Criminal Court on the 26th June 2013. At the trial, the appellant had admitted to causing Mr. Ryan's death but had sought to rely on the defence of diminshed responsibility under s.6(2) of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act, 2006. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal where his appeal was dismissed and subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court where his appeal was also dismissed.

Appellant's submission:

The subject of the appellant's appeal to the Supreme Court was that s.6 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act, 2006 had not been correctly interpreted. The appellant contended that as the defendant, the burden imposed on him by the Act should be viewed as involving a defendant "only to raise a reasonable doubt as to his liability to be convicted of murder" and that he was wrongly forced "to prove on the balance of probabilities that his responsibility was diminished by reason of the matters set out in the legislation."

Holding of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court had to deal with whether the casting of "a burden of proof on the defendant which goes beyond the raising of a reasonable doubt" was in violation of the presumption of innocence in a diminished responsibility case.

The Supreme Court took the view that the above question must be answered in the negative. The court held that it was the intention of the Oireachtas when drafting s.6 of the Criminal Law (Insanity) Act that the use of the word 'establish' and the requirement of the jury to make a 'finding', "to cast a burden of proof on the defence that goes beyond the raising of a reasonable doubt."

O'Malley J stated that she agreed the presumption of innocence would be violated if an accused person was required to satisfy a burden "despite a reasonable doubt as to an essential part of the offence". However, she was of the view that such a scenario had not arisen in the instant case. She confirmed that to raise the defence of diminished responsibility successfully "does not depend on negation of any element of the prosecution case, nor on proving any essential aspect of the offence."

O'Malley J also gave an explanation as to why policy factors justify the same onus of proof being put on the accused in the cases of insanity and diminished responsibility. This is because, in her view, prosecutors must deal with the same difficulty in proving that an accused was sane at the time of the offence and in proving that "the responsibility of the accused was not diminished by reason of mental disorder." If such a burden was on the prosecution then they would have to positively prove that a person suffered from a mental disorder which would be extremely difficult for various reasons such as the fact that an accused cannot be forced to take part in a medical examination for the prosecution.

This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Background (this is the 'heading' setting)
This case involved an appeal to the Irish Supreme Court against an order which had been made in the High Court where Edwards J "ordered the surrender of the appellant to the United Kingdom, pursuant to s.16 of the European Arrest Warrant Act, 2003." The appellant argued against the decision of the High Court stating that there was a de facto abuse of the process of the court in the proceedings against him. The High Court certified the following question for an appeal to the Supreme Court: "Where such an abuse of process has been found to have occurred is it sufficient or appropriate for the Court to admonish the parties responsible whilst also surrendering the [appellant]?"

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that an abuse of process had taken place and that due to relevant factors in the case taken together, no order for the surrender of the appellant should be made.

High Court:

The High Court found that the appellant had been subject to unjust harassment and oppression through the manner in which his rendition was pursued. Consequently, the High Court found that the proceedings before it were a de facto abuse of the courts' process. However, the court felt that in the circumstances, it would not be justified in denying relief to the minister through the refusal of surrender despite the fact that there was an abuse of process in the pursuance of the appellant's rendition.

What belongs here:
This section includes facts of the dispute, its history in lower courts, and relevant historical/political context. Subsections may include history, facts of the case, procedural history de or lower courts (or even a subsection for each lower court, appropriately titled), and petition (for certiorari). You can cite the judgement when you are summarizing the facts of the case.

Oral arguments can go at the end of this section if you choose the "Opinion of the Court" style (see full explanation below).

Holding of the Supreme Court
This section should contain a summary of the Court's opinion as well as any important events of note that occurred during the case. Use this section for excerpts from the decision and precedents cited.

Subsections or a paragraph for concurring and dissenting opinions can also be added as appropriate. Should be in the form of "Concurrences" and "Dissents" for section headers.

Subsequent developments
This is an optional section. Whether your article has it or not depends on the sources you find on Westlaw IE.Cases that clarify/reverse; relevant developments for the parties or dispute (outcome of remand/"Nixon turned over his tapes..."), social effects. Be sure to include citations in support of any claim you make here about the case's subsequent impact.

Refer forward to subsequent cases citing this decision as precedent.