The Court of Appeal has dismissed Jamie Maher’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash his conviction and sentence for trespass, concluding that the District Court record showed he had pleaded guilty.
The judgment, delivered by Birmingham P. on 20 December 2019, concerned a conviction under section 13 of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994. The offence was said to have occurred on 24 November 2015. On 27 January 2017, Portlaoise District Court sentenced Maher to six months’ detention in St. Patrick’s Institution.
Maher sought judicial review of the District Court order, arguing that he had been sentenced for an offence to which he had not pleaded guilty and of which he had not otherwise been convicted. The High Court, which heard the recording of the District Court proceedings, concluded that Maher had pleaded guilty. The District Court order also recorded “Plea: Guilty”.
In an affidavit, Maher’s solicitor said an unnamed representative at Portlaoise District Court could not find a record of a guilty plea, and that a review of the solicitor’s files indicated no plea had been entered. The High Court found no credible explanation for the discrepancy between that account and the hearing transcript.
On appeal, Maher’s counsel argued that the events surrounding 26 January 2017 were unclear. Counsel submitted that Maher may have said “guilty” when the charge was read, but that the judge did not accept this as a plea and put the matter back so Maher’s solicitor could attend. Counsel also raised the absence of a summary of facts and referred to notes on the summons. The Court of Appeal said the summary-of-facts point was not a ground on which leave had been sought, and no application had been made to add it.
The court said the appeal could not be used to raise for the first time a challenge that the plea was equivocal, mistaken or uninformed. It observed that a challenge before the District Court, followed by an unsuccessful application to withdraw or vacate the plea, might have created scope for judicial review. No such challenge or application had been made.
The appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal did not grant the requested order of certiorari quashing the conviction and sentence.