The High Court ruled that a barrister instructed by a solicitor may appear and conduct a case in the District Court without that solicitor being present. It held that adjourning a sentencing hearing because the applicant’s barrister was unaccompanied breached the District Court Rules.
The judicial review concerned a hearing at Dungarvan District Court on 8 June 2016. Daniel Hodnett had pleaded guilty to several offences and was awaiting sentence. The charges included unlawful possession of drugs, driving without insurance, driving without a licence, and obtaining services by deception.
Hodnett’s barrister, Amy Cahillane, was instructed by solicitor Aonghus McCarthy and, according to the High Court’s summary of the evidence, had been fully briefed and was able to take instructions. The District Judge declined to proceed with sentencing unless McCarthy attended court. The case was adjourned to 22 June 2016.
The affidavits differed on the reason for the adjournment. Cahillane said the sole reason was that she was not accompanied by the instructing solicitor. Prosecuting inspector David Nolan recalled that the judge asked about Hodnett’s fitness to plead after counsel referred to a psychiatric condition, a recent deterioration in his mental condition and heavy medication. Nolan said counsel replied, “yes, he is. Just about” or words to that effect. He understood the adjournment was to allow the solicitor to attend and ensure full instructions were available. The High Court noted that the judge had not directed that further reports be obtained about Hodnett’s mental status.
The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the judge was concerned about obtaining proper instructions concerning Hodnett’s mental condition, which could affect how the case was dealt with and the sentence imposed. The High Court said no factual basis had been provided for requiring further instructions, given that counsel was fully briefed and able to take them.
Mr Justice Meenan applied Order 6, rule 1 of the District Court Rules, which permits a party’s solicitor or counsel instructed by that solicitor to appear, address the court and conduct proceedings. He held that refusing to deal with the case because the instructing solicitor was absent breached the rule. Citing the earlier High Court decision in *Andrea Heinullian v. Governor of Cloverhill Prison*, he said the law on counsel’s right of audience was clear.
The court held that Hodnett was entitled to the reliefs he sought: an order of mandamus and a declaration concerning counsel’s ability to appear and conduct the case without the solicitor in attendance. The judgment concluded that the court would hear counsel on any further orders required. It does not record what further orders, if any, were subsequently made.