The High Court found objective bias in the handling of a sentencing hearing for Shane Jackson and ordered that his case return to the District Court before a different judge. It did not decide the sentence to be imposed or make a final order on costs.
Jackson had pleaded guilty to an offence under section 107 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The High Court said the offence, as amended, carried a maximum fine of €2,000 and no custodial penalty. The charge arose after a driver allegedly travelled at more than 200 kilometres per hour on the M7 near Portlaoise in February 2018, abandoned the vehicle at roadworks and moved into its rear, where two other people were present. Garda Olivia Fenlon said she could not establish who had been driving. Jackson refused a requirement to identify the driver.
At a District Court hearing on 17 July 2019, Jackson’s counsel submitted that the offence did not permit imprisonment. The judge adjourned the matter to 25 July and asked for the relevant legislation. At the later hearing, counsel offered a copy of the amended section and said a sergeant and Garda Fenlon agreed with the legal position. The judge declined to accept the copy, said he needed the full Act, and said he would wait for the Director of Public Prosecutions to tell him what sentence was permitted. The case was adjourned again.
Jackson argued in the High Court that the judge’s conduct showed objective bias and that the further adjournment delayed the resolution of a summary offence to which he had pleaded guilty. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application, arguing that the District Judge was entitled to satisfy himself about the law before concluding the case.
Justice Meenan said the initial adjournment was reasonable. But at the 25 July hearing, the District Judge twice said he was not prepared to take counsel’s word and stated that he was waiting for the DPP to identify the correct sentence. The High Court held that a reasonable observer would conclude that counsel’s word was being questioned without explanation and that the judge was favouring one party’s legal representative. It found objective bias and said the matter should have been concluded on 25 July.
The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the District Court for sentencing and that a different District Judge deal with Jackson’s case. It invited written submissions within 14 days on whether any further order was required, including on costs.