The High Court refused Mervin White’s application to overturn a two-month prison sentence imposed in his absence after he repeatedly failed to attend sentencing hearings for road traffic offences to which he had pleaded guilty.
In a judgment delivered on 26 May 2016, Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the District Judge had not erred in law by sentencing Mr White on 10 December 2014. The court declined all the reliefs sought, including an order quashing the District Court orders, a declaration that sentencing in his absence was unlawful, and orders preventing further steps in the case.
Mr White pleaded guilty on 1 October 2014 to drunk driving, dangerous driving, driving without insurance and driving without a licence. His sentencing was adjourned after his legal team said he could not attend because his partner was having a baby and, later, because his sister was seriously ill. The District Judge accepted those explanations and rescheduled sentencing for 10 December, telling his legal representative to warn him that sentencing would proceed in his absence if he did not attend.
On 10 December, counsel told the District Judge that Mr White had missed an early bus from Limerick and would not be coming to court. The judge waited until early afternoon before proceeding. After hearing Garda evidence about Mr White’s previous convictions, including earlier convictions for driving without insurance and drunk driving, she imposed a two-month prison sentence.
Mr White argued that the judge should have adjourned sentencing or issued a bench warrant, and that proceeding without hearing his mitigation breached fair procedures. He said he could have described his progress in recovery from drug addiction and his efforts to stay out of trouble, which might have made him a candidate for community service.
Justice Barrett distinguished the case from earlier decisions concerning defendants tried and sentenced in their absence. Mr White had pleaded guilty in person, knew the sentencing dates, had been warned what would happen if he missed the final date, and had further time to attend that day. The judge said Mr White could also have told his legal team what mitigation he wanted raised. The court found no legal requirement in these circumstances to issue a bench warrant or to stop sentencing because Mr White had chosen not to attend.
The judgment noted Mr White’s fear of imprisonment in Mountjoy Prison, where his brother had died, and drew the Prison Service’s attention to that concern while stating that it did not seek to intrude on the Service’s discretion.