The High Court found that fair procedures were breached when a District Court judge imposed a five-month prison sentence on a man without first giving him an opportunity to attend and be heard. The court said the judge should have adjourned sentencing or issued a bench warrant to secure his attendance.
The ruling concerned a judicial review application by Jason O’Brien, who sought to quash his conviction and penalty following a trial in his absence at Tallaght District Court on 22 July 2010. The judgment, delivered by Kearns P. on 29 July 2011, rejected O’Brien’s explanation for missing the trial but upheld his challenge to the sentencing procedure.
O’Brien had been prosecuted over traffic offences after being stopped in January 2010. He had attended court when the trial date was set. On the trial date, his solicitor sought an adjournment and a bench warrant; both requests were refused. After hearing Garda evidence and legal submissions, the District Court judge convicted O’Brien. A further request for a bench warrant before sentencing was also refused. The judge imposed five months’ imprisonment and a 40-year driving disqualification.
In his judicial review affidavit, O’Brien said he had mistakenly thought the case was listed for the following day. The judgment records that the respondents offered no evidence contradicting that account. However, Kearns P. rejected it, noting O’Brien’s 54 previous road traffic convictions and his presence when the trial date was announced. The court held that the District Court judge was entitled to proceed with the trial and decide guilt or innocence in O’Brien’s absence.
The court treated the proposed prison sentence differently. It considered five months a sentence of substance and said the Supreme Court’s decision in Brennan v. Windle required the sentencing judge, in these circumstances, to check whether there was a bona fide reason for the absence or make some effort to secure the defendant’s attendance before imposing a significant custodial term. The court said that requirement might not arise for a brief prison sentence.
Kearns P. therefore upheld O’Brien’s submission that the District Court should have adjourned sentencing or issued a bench warrant after convicting him. The judgment did not quash the conviction or penalty in the text provided: it said the judge would discuss with counsel what order should be made in light of the findings.