The High Court has quashed Daniel Konadu’s convictions for drink driving and failing to stop at an accident, finding that the District Court proceedings deprived him of a trial in due course of law.
In a judgment delivered on 5 February 2018, Mr Justice Max Barrett granted an order of certiorari quashing the convictions and the declaration sought by Mr Konadu. The decision concerned the fairness of the District Court hearing, not whether the evidence was sufficient to convict him.
Mr Konadu had been convicted on 9 February 2017. The High Court judgment recounts that the prosecution alleged he struck the rear of a car stopped at traffic lights, drove away, and was later found by a garda unsteady on his feet. Mr Konadu’s instructions to his counsel were that he had not been drinking at the time of the collision, but had bought and consumed alcohol after leaving the scene. He did not dispute being intoxicated when the garda arrived.
During cross-examination of the other driver, the District judge asked whether Mr Konadu would give evidence. Counsel said the decision depended on how the court ruled on a later application for a direction; the judge pressed for an answer, and counsel said “no”. The judge then stopped questioning about whether the other driver had seen Mr Konadu go into a shop or consume alcohol.
Mr Justice Barrett said an accused should not have to decide whether to give evidence before the prosecution case has closed. He also found that counsel must be allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses in accordance with the accused’s instructions, subject to the judge’s proper control of questioning. In this case, the intervention went beyond that supervisory role and breached fair procedures.
The High Court rejected a separate criticism about the District judge’s handling of the failure-to-stop charge. Defence counsel had argued that the charge under section 106(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 did not apply because the car had stopped after the collision. The judge rejected the argument without hearing from the prosecution. The High Court held that the judge’s brief response adequately showed which argument was rejected and why; whether the evidence supported the conviction was not for judicial review to decide.
The District Court had imposed fines of €100 and €25 for the respective offences and driving disqualifications of three and four years. The High Court’s order quashed the convictions. The judgment does not state any further order concerning the fines or disqualifications.