The High Court quashed road traffic convictions after finding that a District Court judge’s repeated prior representation of the applicant as a solicitor created a reasonable concern about objective bias.
Mr Justice Birmingham’s judgment concerned convictions imposed on 26 February 2010 for offences under the Road Traffic Acts, including driving under the influence of alcohol and driving without insurance. The District Court imposed concurrent six-month prison sentences and a period of driving disqualification. The applicant sought judicial review of the decisions, arguing that Judge Kevin Kilrane should have recused himself because he had previously acted for him as a solicitor.
The accounts of what happened when the case was called differed. The applicant said his solicitor sought an adjournment because he was unwell following an assault and also asked the judge to recuse himself. Garda witnesses said the first adjournment request was based on an injury and was refused in the absence of medical evidence. On their account, the recusal request came at a second calling, after the applicant had appeared, and the judge rejected it as not genuine because the concern had not been raised earlier. The High Court said there was no dispute about the conduct of the trial after the recusal request was refused.
The respondents opposed relief, citing delay, the available appeal to the Circuit Court and the timing of the recusal request. Justice Birmingham criticised the applicant’s conduct and said the late application appeared to raise suspicion that it was intended to postpone the hearing. He found the application was made within six months, though not promptly, and said delay was relevant to the court’s discretion. He also rejected the argument that the District Court judge’s decision on recusal was not open to judicial review. An appeal was not, by itself, a bar to review of a complaint about bias at first instance.
The judge found that Mr Kilrane had acted for the applicant on seven occasions between 2001 and 2007, in matters involving public order, assault and road traffic offences; alcohol featured in many of them. The relationship was an ongoing one, rather than a single instruction. Although details of its extent were not put before Judge Kilrane when recusal was sought, the High Court considered it proper to proceed on the basis that he knew its general nature.
Justice Birmingham said the applicant’s conduct would have counted against him in the eyes of an objective observer. But he concluded that the same observer might doubt whether the judge could put aside the knowledge gained through his repeated role as defence solicitor. He therefore quashed the challenged District Court orders. The judgment does not decide the underlying road traffic charges; the applicant had lodged an appeal to the Circuit Court, which was stayed after leave for judicial review was granted.