The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Murphy’s appeal against a refusal to remove a Circuit Court judge from presiding over his retrial on diesel laundering charges. The court held that an informed and reasonable observer would have no reasonable basis to doubt the judge’s fairness or impartiality.
Murphy’s first trial took place in the Circuit Court in Waterford in May 2019 and ended when the jury could not agree. It lasted 15 days, including eight days of hearings on whether evidence obtained during searches of premises linked to Murphy could be admitted.
During those hearings, the trial judge rejected defence allegations that a Garda had deliberately misled a District Court judge when seeking a search warrant, and that a Revenue officer had given false evidence about entering the premises. The judge found that the Revenue officer’s supplementary statements were confused and had damaged her credibility, but did not show deliberate deceit. He excluded her evidence and related sketches and photographs concerning visits on 15 and 18 November 2013. He did not exclude other evidence or stop the trial.
Murphy argued that the same judge should not hear the retrial because he had already assessed the credibility of prosecution witnesses and might be influenced by those earlier decisions. The judge refused to recuse himself. The High Court then refused Murphy’s application for judicial review, and he appealed.
The Court of Appeal said the earlier rulings and the judge’s forceful language did not establish objective bias. It described the judge’s handling of the evidence as careful and conscientious, and concluded that a reasonable observer would expect him to approach a retrial, including any further hearing on admissibility, fairly. It also distinguished this case from one in which a judge had rejected the credibility of the accused: here, the earlier credibility challenges concerned prosecution witnesses and had not succeeded, apart from the limited evidence the judge excluded.
The court dismissed the appeal. Its ruling addressed whether the judge should be removed from the retrial; it did not decide Murphy’s guilt or innocence, or determine the admissibility of evidence at any future hearing.