The Court of Appeal has dismissed Patricia O’Mahoney’s appeal against the refusal of judicial review of her District Court conviction for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant.
O’Mahoney was convicted at Mullingar District Court on 2 October 2014 under section 4(4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. She sought to have the conviction and sentence quashed, arguing that the District Court judge’s interventions during her trial created an appearance of bias and denied her a fair hearing. The High Court refused relief. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, which delivered judgment on 30 July 2018.
The appeal concerned how the District Court judge questioned defence counsel about the case, interrupted cross-examination of the arresting garda, and handled counsel’s submissions after the prosecution closed its case. Counsel had challenged, among other matters, the basis for the arrest and whether required formal proof had been given for a breath-test statement. The appeal court noted that the judge’s exchanges with counsel were robust and that some remarks—including references to a “Dublin court” and a “salad bar”—were intemperate, gratuitous and unnecessary.
But, assessing the exchanges in context, the Court of Appeal was not persuaded that an impartial observer would have had reason to doubt the District Court judge’s impartiality. It also found no evidence that counsel had been unable to present the defence in any meaningful way. The court said counsel was able to make his points apart from one argument concerning the breath-test statement, and concluded that this argument was misconceived on the evidence and would have failed.
The court accepted that counsel should have been allowed to finish that submission. It held, however, that the unfairness complained of was not sufficiently far-reaching to justify judicial review. It agreed with the High Court that the overall threshold for relief based on procedural unfairness, excessive intervention or bias had not been met.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It said O’Mahoney remained free to pursue her ordinary entitlement to appeal, if she wished. The judgment did not quash the conviction or determine any such further appeal.