The High Court has ruled that a District Court judge should have recused herself from hearing an alcohol licensing prosecution against Midnight Entertainment Limited, which trades as Four Aces Casino. The High Court concluded the company was entitled to the relief it sought in its judicial review, but deferred the appropriate orders for a further hearing with counsel.
Gardaí searched the company’s premises on 28 November 2015 and seized alcohol. The company was prosecuted in Galway District Court for selling or exposing alcohol for sale without a licence, contrary to section 7 of the Intoxicating Liqueur (General) Act 1924.
The same District Judge had dealt with a similar prosecution against a company director in July 2015. During that hearing, she said a “genuine” casino must have a liquor licence. The director was convicted and given a six-month sentence, suspended in full. That conviction was later overturned on appeal.
When the company’s prosecution came before the judge in January 2017, its solicitor asked her to step aside, citing the earlier comments and conviction. The judge refused, saying judges in a District Court area regularly encounter the same people and should not stand aside too readily. She said she might have made a general comment during the earlier case, but did not confirm whether she had.
The company argued in the High Court that the circumstances created objective bias and that the District Judge had applied the wrong test. Mr Justice Meenan applied the question of whether a reasonable person would reasonably apprehend that the company would not receive a fair hearing from an impartial judge.
He acknowledged the legal distinction between a company and an individual director, and that judges are not required to recuse themselves simply because the same people regularly appear before them. But he found that a reasonable person could see the director and company as effectively the same “person” in this context: the charges were identical, the earlier conviction had been overturned, and the later case was before the same judge.
The court said the company was entitled to the relief sought. The judgment did not specify the final form of the orders; the judge said he would hear counsel on what orders should follow.