For Redmond, yesterday's sentence represents something of a let off, but more importantly it sets a low benchmark for other white-collar criminals facing corruption charges.
Judge Michael White could have imposed a prison sentence of up to seven years. He could have imposed fines of up to €24,000. He could have made Redmond pay the costs of the DPP. And he could have ordered Redmond to forfeit some or all of his pension.
In reality, the maximum penalties were never going to be applied to a 79-year-old man with health problems. Neither should they; as Redmond's senior counsel, Mr Brendan Grehan, eloquently pointed out earlier this week, long sentences for elderly defendants should be reserved for murderers, sex abusers and war criminals.
There aren't many modern precedents for the kind of corruption charges Redmond was facing, which in itself says a lot about the energy with which society has tackled the problem. But in the one case cited by the judge and Mr Grehan this week, a Garda received a six-month sentence earlier this year after he offered to quash a drink-driving charge in return for a £500 bribe.
In that case, Mr Justice Hardiman stated that it was the "effect rather than the duration" of the sentence that had public effect. Clearly Judge White has followed this principle in the Redmond case.
But while the two cases were taken under similar legislation, they differ substantially in other ways. The garda pleaded guilty, unlike Redmond. The amount involved was far smaller; the current value of Redmond's £10,000 bribe in 1989 is well over €20,000. Redmond had a previous conviction, for tax offences. Finally, Redmond was the most senior public official in Dublin, whereas the garda occupied an ordinary rank.
In other words, Redmond got more money, had a far greater responsibility and prolonged proceedings by pleading not guilty.
If the "serious breach of trust" Judge White said Redmond had committed merits a sentence of one year in jail, what will happen in future cases? Lawyers will likely argue that this sentence should be the upper limit where corruption is involved.
This is not an argument for sending Redmond to jail for a longer period. Judge White was humane and rightly so, given his health. But a three-year sentence, with two years suspended, would have made no difference to the defendant in this trial but would have set a firmer precedent for future cases. A financial penalty might also have seemed apposite because it would have caused Redmond considerable pain to part with any money.
Not that the legal proceedings involving him are over. Next month, his legal team will appeal his conviction to the Court of Criminal Appeal. An application to the High Court for his release on bail is likely to follow.
He also faces further corruption charges relating to an alleged payment he got in the mid-1980s after signing a compulsory purchase order on Buzzardstown House, a period property in west Dublin.
Redmond has actually told the Garda he got this money from a Fianna Fáil councillor, Pat Dunne, for signing the CPO. However, he then retracted this version of events when giving evidence at the tribunal, saying "I don't know what got into me". Mr Dunne, who has since died, was said to be working on behalf of a major property developer.
Given Redmond's conviction for the bribe he received from garage owner Mr Brendan Fassnidge, the DPP could decide to enter a nolle prosequi on the Buzzardstown charges. However, this would mean that if he managed to overturn his current conviction, the Buzzardstown charges could not be resurrected.
The Planning tribunal also retains an interest in Redmond. Its investigation into his financial affairs was interrupted when the CAB arrested him in 1999. No report has been issued on the evidence he gave to Mr Justice Flood.