The High Court has refused a mother’s application for judicial review of a District Judge’s decision to continue hearing a Health Service Executive application for a full care order concerning her daughter.
In a judgment delivered on 10 February 2006, Mr Justice Quirke found that an informed, objective person in the mother’s position could not reasonably apprehend that the judge would approach the care application with a closed mind. The court refused the relief sought, including orders to quash the judge’s decision and prevent him from continuing to hear the case.
The mother’s challenge followed the judge’s refusal to disqualify himself. He had previously made an interim order requiring her access to her son to be supervised by the Health Board. The mother argued that this earlier decision gave rise to a reasonable concern that the judge would not decide impartially whether her daughter should be placed in the HSE’s care.
The HSE’s application for a full care order was made on 23 May 2005. The judge began hearing it before considering a related guardianship matter. The mother’s legal representatives did not object to that sequence and participated in the care proceedings. On the second day of the hearing, they asked the judge to step aside because of his earlier access order. He heard submissions, adjourned the matter and later gave reasons for refusing the request.
The High Court applied the objective test for bias: whether a reasonable, informed person, knowing the relevant facts, would apprehend that the judge would not bring an impartial mind to the case. It said the mother might genuinely fear an unfavourable decision, but that fear alone did not establish objective bias.
The court noted that the earlier access decision was interim and had not been appealed. Judges may hear interim applications and later determine related issues involving the same parties. The judge’s earlier involvement, and the fact that the access order was perceived as adverse to the mother, were not enough in the circumstances to require him to withdraw.
The ruling addressed only the challenge to the judge’s refusal to disqualify himself. It did not decide whether the daughter should be placed in care. The HSE’s full care application remained for determination in the underlying proceedings.