The High Court quashed a man’s drink-driving conviction after finding that remarks made by the Circuit Court judge could lead a reasonable, objective and informed observer to fear that the hearing was not impartial.
In a judgment delivered on 6 May 2011, Mr Justice Hogan said the conviction could not safely stand. After the Director of Public Prosecutions later told the court it did not seek to have the case sent back to the Circuit Court, the judge decided not to remit it.
The man had been convicted in the District Court on 2 March 2009. The Circuit Court affirmed that conviction on 3 March 2010. He challenged the Circuit Court decision by judicial review on several grounds.
The underlying charge arose from a Garda checkpoint at Vicarstown, Co Laois, on 28 July 2007. Evidence in the earlier courts was that a Garda stopped the man’s vehicle at a mandatory alcohol checkpoint, where he failed a breath test and was arrested. After he said he was unwell and diabetic while being taken to Portlaoise Garda Station, a doctor was called and he provided a urine sample. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety reported an alcohol concentration of 211 milligrams.
One challenge concerned the written checkpoint authorisation, which named only “Vicarstown”. The man argued that this was ambiguous because places with that name existed in three counties. Mr Justice Hogan said the argument was arguable, but did not decide whether the authorisation was invalid or whether that would affect the arrest.
The court instead ruled on the appearance of bias. According to the man’s affidavit, after his counsel challenged the authorisation, the judge declined to hear the prosecution’s reply and called the argument “rubbish - utter rubbish”. The judge was also said to have remarked that he had “no time for these technical drink driving points”. The account was not controverted by an affidavit for the Director, and Mr Justice Hogan accepted it as correct or substantially correct.
The High Court found no actual bias. It concluded, however, that an informed observer might fear the judge appeared determined to rule against the man regardless of the arguments. The conviction was quashed on that basis. The question of remitting the case was initially left for further argument; after the Director said it did not seek remittal, the High Court did not send the matter back to the Circuit Court.