The High Court has dismissed Anthony Connor’s application to quash his conviction for being intoxicated in charge of a vehicle, rejecting claims that the District Court trial was unfair or affected by objective bias.
Connor was arrested in Bray on 29 December 2018 after spending the night in his car. He was later convicted under section 5(4) and (5) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. The District Court imposed a €750 fine, disqualified him from driving for three years and endorsed his licence.
The judicial review concerned the District Judge’s handling of the trial, which took place over five days in May and June 2019. Among other complaints, Connor argued that the judge unfairly visited the place where his car had been parked to assess whether it was a public place. The visit took place without the parties or their representatives.
The High Court found that the prosecution had already presented evidence that the car was parked in a public place. It said the District Judge was entitled to use knowledge of a physical location, including knowledge gained by visiting it. The judge had announced the proposed visit in advance, and the defence did not ask to attend or object before it took place. The High Court also noted that the District Judge later described what he had observed and the defence had an opportunity to make submissions.
The High Court accepted that the District Judge did not rule on the defence application for a direction concerning GPS coordinates. It concluded that the coordinates had not been relied on by the prosecution to establish the car’s location, which was not in dispute, and that the decision not to rule did not make the trial unfair.
Connor also challenged the trial judge’s treatment of the evidence on intent to drive, the location stated on the charge sheet, judicial interventions and a question on the final day about whether he was giving evidence. The High Court said any alleged errors were matters for an appeal or case stated unless they met the high threshold for judicial review. It found that threshold was not met and that, viewed as a whole, the trial judge had allowed the defence to make submissions and present evidence.
Justice Niamh Hyland dismissed the judicial review application. The judgment did not determine Connor’s appeal from the conviction; it addressed whether the conviction should be quashed through judicial review.