Today on the show, Niall speaks with journalist and barrister Sarah Ryan about one of the most controversial issues in criminal justice today: mitigating circumstances — and whether it is fair on victims when perpetrators cite drug use, alcohol, mental illness or trauma to reduce a sentence.

Together they explore why such defences exist, what legal and moral arguments support them — and whether they can ever be justified when serious crimes are at stake. They’ll examine both sides of the debate:

🔹 Why mitigating circumstances are sometimes accepted — arguments around mental illness, diminished responsibility, trauma, addiction or external factors that may impair judgment.

🔹 Why many feel these defences undermine justice for victims — concerns that reduced sentences or verdicts of “not guilty by reason of insanity” can trivialise suffering, deny closure, or fail to reflect the harm done.

They’ll reference high-profile cases from the last decade where courts accepted such defences or reduced charges — as well as cases where such pleas were rejected, to ask: Do these defences protect the vulnerable — or let dangerous people off too lightly?

We want to hear from you. Do you believe mitigating circumstances should ever reduce a sentence for a serious crime — or should accountability always come first?

WhatsApp your thoughts to: 085 100 22 55

⚖️ Some Recent Examples

Here are a few recent and well-documented cases that highlight how courts have handled mitigating circumstances — and why they remain controversial:

In 2020, a Welsh man named Anthony Williams strangled his wife to death. The court accepted a plea of diminished responsibility, reducing the charge from murder to manslaughter on the grounds of his impaired mental state. He was sentenced to five years in prison — a decision that sparked substantial criticism from domestic-abuse activists who argued the sentence was far too lenient given the severity of the crime.

Wikipedia

In another illustrative case, Alexander Lewis‑Ranwell was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity after killing three men during a psychotic episode. The court determined that his mental illness meant he did not know the nature or wrongfulness of his acts. Under legal precedent for “insane automatism,” he was detained under mental-health provisions rather than given a typical prison sentence.

doughtystreet.co.uk

+1

That said — mitigation is not automatic. In the recent sentencing guidelines case The King v Noel David Quigley (2025), the court upheld a three-year sentence for attempted wounding despite arguments about the defendant’s mental-health difficulties. The court emphasised that mental illness does not always justify a reduced sentence: each case must be judged on its specific facts.

Judiciary NI

+1

🎙 What We’ll Be Debating on Air

With Sarah Ryan, Niall will raise tough questions like:

Should there be a “hard line” for serious crimes — murder, violent assault — where mitigating circumstances carry little or no weight?

Is the legal definition of “insanity” (or “diminished responsibility”) still fit for purpose in 2025 — or does it need reform?

What does justice look like for victims and survivors versus for perpetrators with genuine mental-health issues?

How do we balance society’s responsibility to treat mental illness — while also protecting public safety and honouring victims’ suffering?