The High Court has set aside a District Court conviction for holding a mobile phone while driving, finding that the trial was fundamentally unfair. The court has not yet decided whether the case should be sent back to the District Court for a rehearing.
In a judgment delivered on 13 January 2025, Mr Justice Garrett Simons found that the District Court judge had taken over the cross-examination of Bartholomew Anthony O’Neill, who represented himself, and questioned him in a hostile manner about what he had been holding while driving. The judge implied during the hearing that Mr O’Neill was giving dishonest or evasive answers, before all the evidence had been heard.
Mr O’Neill had admitted holding his mobile phone. He said it was connected by Bluetooth to headphones and that he used the headphones to answer a call from his uncle in Canada. He argued that the phone and headphones together formed a hands-free device. The High Court did not determine that statutory interpretation issue; it found that the way the District Court handled the hearing deprived him of a trial in due course of law.
The High Court also found that the District Court had failed to properly consider Mr O’Neill’s request to refer two questions of law to the High Court by way of a consultative case stated. The District Court had not allowed him to fully present his arguments or given proper reasons for refusing the request. The High Court said it was unnecessary to decide whether it could order the District Court to refer the questions, because that relief had not been sought.
Other grounds did not succeed. The High Court rejected a challenge to the initial two-week adjournment, noting that Mr O’Neill had not objected and had instead been allowed to call a witness early. It also declined to consider his constitutional challenge to penalty points, which had become moot after the conviction was set aside. Grounds concerning self-incrimination and the earlier transcript application were either refused leave or moot.
The District Court had imposed a €120 fine and set recognisances of €200 for an appeal. The High Court’s judgment quashed the conviction, so penalty points will not be applied on its basis. The court reserved the question of remittal and listed the proceedings for mention on 29 January 2025 to give directions for written submissions on that issue.