The High Court has refused an application to quash a careless-driving conviction, finding that a District Court judge’s use of the word “irrefutable” did not establish bias in the circumstances of the trial.
Desmond Fogarty was convicted and fined €300 after a collision at Ushers Quay in Dublin on 28 August 2004. The prosecution alleged he had driven through a red light and collided with a motorcyclist. Three independent witnesses travelling in the motorcyclist’s direction said their light was green. Fogarty maintained that the light governing his own progress was not red when he entered the intersection.
After the prosecution had closed its case, the District Court judge sought evidence about the traffic-light sequence. The defence had raised the possibility that a green light for the motorcyclist’s route could coincide with an amber light for Fogarty’s route, but had called no supporting witness. When the defence did not produce an expert, the judge directed that a witness attend. The case was adjourned. The High Court said that witness’s evidence was neutral and did not affect the District Court’s decision.
Fogarty sought judicial review, arguing that the conviction was unsafe because the judge had shown bias and breached fair procedures by directing the additional witness. Fogarty and his solicitor testified that the judge had called the three witnesses’ evidence “irrefutable” before the defence case was complete. The prosecuting garda and the State solicitor said they had not heard the word used. After hearing witnesses cross-examined, the High Court judge found, on the balance of probabilities, that the District Court judge had used that word or a similar one.
The High Court said a judge may form a tentative view as a trial progresses, but must not reach a final decision before hearing all the evidence or create the appearance of having prejudged the case. It applied the objective test of whether a reasonable, informed person would apprehend that the judge had not brought an impartial mind to the case.
The court concluded that the District Court judge’s decision to adjourn and seek evidence on the light sequence showed he had not pre-empted the case. The additional witness was called to provide a basis for assessing the defence argument, not to strengthen the prosecution. The High Court said the judge’s later preference for the independent witnesses’ evidence was within his judicial function.
The High Court refused the relief sought. The conviction and €300 fine therefore remained in place.