Psychiatric Diagnosis as Newly Discovered Evidence in Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article considers how courts in Ireland have responded to newly discovered evidence that a defendant was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence. Where such evidence was not known to the jury, there is a risk that a wrongful conviction may have occurred. When psychiatrists examine a defendant for the purposes of criminal proceedings, they may only have had limited time to study and diagnose the defendant. Sometimes, the defendant’s subsequent symptoms and presentation can lead to a psychiatrist revising their original diagnosis. In Ireland, a defendant can make an application arguing that this newly discovered fact shows that there has been a miscarriage of justice in relation to the original conviction. It appears that Irish courts will only accept such applications in exceptional circumstances. This article discusses the recent Court of Appeal decisions in People (DPP) v Abdi (no 2) and People (DPP) v McGinley. It analyses the reasoning of the judgments and seeks to identify what general principles can be derived from the decisions that can be used to inform future applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".