The High Court has refused to quash a fine imposed on Chinedu Omee after finding that a District Court judge’s mistaken belief that he had already announced a conviction was quickly and openly corrected.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 21 March 2018 in judicial review proceedings concerning Mr Omee’s prosecution for an offence under section 6 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. The judgment identifies the record as 2017/208 JR and is reported as [2018] IEHC 148.
According to the judgment, the District Court judge had decided to convict Mr Omee and believed he had said so before asking the prosecuting garda whether Mr Omee had previous convictions. After questions about those convictions, defence counsel asked whether the judge was finding Mr Omee guilty. The judge replied that he had already done so, then acknowledged that he had asked about previous convictions.
Mr Omee’s counsel accepted that the judge had not used the previous convictions to decide whether to convict. They argued, however, that a reasonable bystander could think the judge was proceeding on that basis. The judgment also records that counsel did not seek the judge’s recusal at the time, allege impropriety or make a complaint.
The High Court said the District Court judge’s reasoning was apparent from the transcript: he preferred the prosecuting garda’s account over Mr Omee’s. It considered that Mr Omee knew what he had been convicted of and why. The court said the judge’s mistaken belief about having announced the conviction was a slip that was corrected openly, and that the accepted facts did not show the previous convictions had been used improperly.
Mr Omee had sought an order of certiorari quashing the fine, declarations that it was made without or in excess of jurisdiction and in breach of natural and constitutional justice, and ancillary relief. The court declined to grant any of the reliefs sought. The judgment does not provide the fine amount.