The Court of Appeal has dismissed Mervin White’s appeal against the refusal of his judicial review challenge to a two-month prison sentence imposed in his absence. The appeal concerned whether the District Court judge could proceed after White repeatedly failed to attend sentencing hearings and was warned that the final hearing would go ahead without him.
White had pleaded guilty on 1 October 2014 to road traffic offences arising from an incident on 12 October 2012. He had failed to appear on four occasions before entering his plea, resulting in three bench warrants. After he appeared late in court and the third warrant was cancelled, sentencing was adjourned to 22 October. He did not attend that date.
The Court of Appeal judgment records that the sentencing was then adjourned twice more. On 29 October, the court accepted that White could not attend because his partner was having a baby. On 12 November, the court was told a relative was ill in hospital, and the prosecution agreed to another adjournment. The District Court judge set sentencing for 10 December and directed White’s legal representative to tell him the hearing would proceed if he did not attend.
On 10 December, White’s counsel said he had missed an early bus from Limerick. The judge allowed time for him to catch a later service, noting he had previously arrived at 12.45pm. The hearing was held until 1.20pm. When White had still not arrived and no further explanation had been provided, the judge heard Garda evidence about the offences and his previous convictions. The judgment says the judge took account of prior convictions for driving without insurance and drunk driving before imposing the two-month sentence.
White argued that Supreme Court decisions in Brennan and O’Brien required an adjournment or a bench warrant before a significant custodial sentence could be imposed in an accused person’s absence. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that those cases were distinguishable because the judges there had made no effort to check the reasons for absence or secure attendance.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the circumstances were materially different. It said the District Court judge had made repeated efforts to ensure White’s attendance, granted earlier adjournments and waited on the final date. The court concluded she was entitled to find he had consciously chosen not to attend and could sentence him in his absence. It dismissed the appeal, leaving the High Court’s refusal of judicial review undisturbed. The judgment does not make a fresh sentencing order.