The High Court directed that a transcript be prepared from the digital audio recording of a District Court hearing at the centre of judicial review proceedings challenging a conviction. The order concerned the record of the hearing; it did not resolve whether the conviction should be quashed.
The applicant, Gerard Hudson, sought to quash a conviction for breaching a place of safety order imposed by the respondent District Judge, Anthony Halpin. Hudson alleged that the judge interfered with cross-examination and conducted the hearing unfairly. The judge denied those allegations. Mr Justice Hogan said the disputed account was central to resolving the case and declined to address the underlying dispute in detail at this stage.
The application before the High Court was for discovery of the digital audio recording. The Courts Service told the court that it operated the recording system, but that the recording remained under the control of the presiding judge. The judge had no objection to producing it. The court was also informed that the judge had provided a detailed account and response, which had been made available to the parties.
Hogan said directing production was just because an accurate account of what happened was essential to a fair resolution. He described such a direction as exceptional, in view of its cost implications, and said the procedure should not revive an overly formal approach to reviewing lower court proceedings. He also said it would be undesirable for the respondent judge to become personally involved by giving evidence, although he appreciated the judge’s offer to do so.
The judgment, delivered on 15 January 2013, records that Hogan directed production of a transcript of the hearing. It does not state the result of the judicial review challenge or make a finding on the allegations of unfairness.