The Supreme Court has upheld a ruling that a District Court judge should not have imposed a five-month prison sentence on Jason O’Brien in his absence after a road traffic trial in Tallaght.
Mr O’Brien faced charges of driving without tax, insurance or a licence. He had attended Tallaght District Court on 2 July 2010 when the trial date was fixed, and he was represented by a solicitor. However, he did not attend the trial on 22 July.
His solicitor sought an adjournment, but District Judge John Coughlan proceeded with the prosecution evidence and convicted Mr O’Brien. The solicitor then asked that a bench warrant be issued so Mr O’Brien could be brought before the court for sentencing.
The judge instead sentenced him immediately to five months in prison and disqualified him from driving for 40 years.
Mr O’Brien successfully challenged that procedure in the High Court. President Kearns held in 2011 that the District Judge had been entitled to proceed with the trial because Mr O’Brien had known the date. But a five-month custodial sentence was substantial enough to require an effort to secure his attendance before punishment was imposed.
The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed that ruling.
Delivering the Supreme Court judgment, Mr Justice Charleton agreed that an accused can waive the right to attend a trial by knowingly failing to appear. The court found no error in proceeding with Mr O’Brien’s trial and conviction.
Sentencing was different. The court said it is a separate hearing at which an offender can present testimonials, mitigating evidence and submissions before potentially serious consequences are imposed.
Where imprisonment is contemplated for an offence that would not invariably attract custody, natural justice requires the court to adjourn or take reasonable steps to compel the offender’s attendance.
The Supreme Court therefore dismissed the DPP’s appeal, leaving the High Court ruling in Mr O’Brien’s favour on the sentencing issue intact.