The High Court has dismissed Mary Delany’s application to quash her District Court conviction for driving with excess alcohol in her urine, finding that the District Judge acted within jurisdiction and that the case did not meet the exceptional standard for judicial review.
Delany was convicted on 19 January 2010 of an offence under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The summons alleged that the offence occurred on 25 August 2008. She sought certiorari, arguing there was no evidence she had driven on that date and that the District Judge had failed to give adequate reasons for refusing to dismiss the charge at the end of the prosecution case.
The District Court had heard evidence from a Garda and James Merrigan. Merrigan said he found Delany sitting in a car beside his, after his car had been scraped. He said the other car’s ignition was running and that he switched it off. The Garda arrived at 12.05am on 25 August and said the keys were in the ignition, the engine was off, and he had not seen Delany driving. The State also presented unchallenged evidence that the alcohol level in her urine greatly exceeded the statutory limit.
The High Court judgment noted that the reported evidence placed Merrigan’s departure from a friend’s house at 11.45pm on 24 August, shortly before he reached the cars. The judge concluded there was evidence from which the District Judge could infer that Delany had driven shortly before she was found. He also said the date stated on the summons did not make the trial unfair in this case: time was not an essential element of the offence, and the discrepancy had not put Delany at a disadvantage in answering the charge.
Justice McMahon held that the District Judge had discretion to proceed despite a variance in the alleged date or to amend the summons. Even if the District Judge had made an error, the judgment said, it would have been an error within jurisdiction and therefore not a basis for judicial review. The usual route for challenging a District Court decision was an appeal, which provides a full rehearing.
On reasons, the High Court found the District Judge’s statement that he had heard all the evidence sufficiently clear in the circumstances. It also found no evidence of bias. The judge said the application could be dismissed on the jurisdictional ground and treated the other points as unnecessary to the outcome, while adding that he would have found against Delany on them as well.
The application for certiorari was dismissed. The judgment did not quash or otherwise alter the District Court conviction.