The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by a minor who argued that a Court of Appeal judge should have recused herself because she had chaired and spoken at a clinical negligence conference hosted by solicitors acting for the defendants.
The appeal concerned the refusal of the Court of Appeal to recuse Ms Justice Irvine. The appellant relied on her participation in a conference hosted by Hayes Solicitors, which represented the State Claims Agency in the case, and on photographs of her at the event published on the firm’s website. He argued that the circumstances created a real possibility of unconscious bias and breached Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The underlying proceedings arose from a bladder injury during the appellant’s appendectomy at St Luke’s Hospital in Kilkenny in 2006. Negligence was not in issue at the High Court hearing, which was confined to assessing damages. The High Court awarded €50,000 in general damages. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the amount. The Supreme Court appeal was limited to the recusal issue; it did not reconsider the damages award.
In a judgment delivered by Ms Justice Dunne on 14 June 2016, the Supreme Court applied the objective test of whether a reasonable, fair-minded and informed observer would apprehend a risk that the judge would not be impartial. It considered that the conference, held in May 2014, addressed reform of medical negligence litigation and included stakeholders from both plaintiff and defendant sides. The judgment described the event as a forum for discussion of issues in the field, at which Ms Justice Irvine spoke in the context of her work chairing a group on medical negligence and periodic payments.
The court held that chairing the conference and the appearance of the photographs on the solicitors’ website did not amount to an endorsement of the firm or create a reasonable apprehension of bias. It concluded that the judge’s participation was appropriate and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court’s decision addressed the recusal question; it did not alter the earlier damages award.