The High Court has refused Patricia O’Mahoney’s application to quash her drink-driving conviction, finding that interventions by the District Court judge did not breach the fundamental requirements of a fair trial. The judgment was delivered by Mr Justice McDermott on 26 October 2016.
O’Mahoney sought judicial review of her conviction and sentence, imposed at Mullingar District Court on 2 October 2014. She argued that the judge’s questions to her counsel at the start of the case, comments during the hearing and interruptions during cross-examination showed unfairness or bias and prevented her defence from being properly presented.
The case concerned a charge that O’Mahoney drove in a public place on 12 September 2013 with an alcohol concentration in her breath above the statutory limit. Garda Antoinette Kerins testified that she saw O’Mahoney driving erratically, smelled alcohol on her breath and administered a roadside Drager test, which she failed. At the garda station, two breath specimens produced a reading of 57mg of alcohol per 100ml.
During cross-examination, O’Mahoney’s counsel questioned whether the roadside test had contributed to the garda’s decision to arrest her, and whether it should have been delayed because O’Mahoney had said she had been drinking. The judge intervened in the questioning and described the test as a screening device. Counsel argued that the interventions undermined his line of defence and affected the garda’s evidence.
Mr Justice McDermott said judges should generally keep interruptions during cross-examination to a minimum, while recognising that each case depends on its circumstances. He found that the judge had frequently intervened and exchanged robust, sometimes brusque, remarks with counsel. But he was not satisfied that the judge had tried to make the garda change her evidence or that the exchanges created a perception of bias rendering the trial unfair.
The High Court also found that the evidence gave the District Court judge a basis to conclude that the garda had formed a bona fide and reasonable suspicion for the arrest. It did not decide the judicial review as an appeal on the merits. The judgment noted that O’Mahoney could appeal to the Circuit Court, where the charge and legal arguments could be reheard.
The court dismissed the application for certiorari, which sought to quash the conviction and sentence. It concluded that the judicial interventions did not meet the threshold for that relief and that an effective and convenient appeal remedy was available.