The High Court has refused Jamie Maher’s application to quash his conviction and six-month custodial sentence for trespass, finding that the District Court transcript recorded a guilty plea to the charge.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered judgment on 1 May 2018 in judicial review proceedings against the Director of Public Prosecutions. The application concerned only a charge prosecuted by Garda Sharon Murray under section 13 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, as amended. The charge related to an alleged trespass on 24 November 2015 at 68 Hillview Drive, Nockmay.
The judgment recounts that Maher appeared before Portlaoise District Court on 26 January 2017 and pleaded guilty to that charge. The matter was put back to the following day. On 27 January, the District Court imposed six months’ detention in St Patrick’s Institution.
Maher sought judicial review, arguing that he had not pleaded guilty and that sentencing him breached fair procedures and was outside the District Court’s jurisdiction. His solicitor’s affidavit said Maher did not wish to plead guilty to any of the matters before the court and that the solicitor could not find a record of a plea in the court office or his own file.
Justice Meenan found that the transcript contradicted the central claim. During the sentencing hearing, the solicitor referred to Maher having pleaded guilty to the Garda Murray charge while making submissions in mitigation. The judgment also noted that the solicitor did not question the plea when the District Judge proceeded to sentence, and did not put to Garda Murray the claim that an adjournment would have been sought because of a witness difficulty. The District Court record exhibited by the DPP also recorded a guilty plea.
The court distinguished the case from Byrne v Judge McDonnell, in which the High Court had allowed an applicant to change a guilty plea before the case was finally disposed of. In Maher’s case, the judgment said, there had been no request to change the plea.
Justice Meenan refused the relief sought. He said he would hear the parties on the appropriate order for costs; the judgment did not determine costs.