The High Court has refused Lee Heffernan’s application to quash convictions and sentences imposed by Kilkenny District Court in June 2017 for road traffic and public order offences.
Mr Justice McDermott ruled on 9 October 2018 that the applicant had not established grounds for certiorari. He also refused a motion to amend the grounds of the judicial review, made shortly before the substantive hearing. The judgment considered the proposed grounds’ substance despite refusing permission to add them.
The District Court heard the summonses while Heffernan was absent and represented by a solicitor. It dismissed a charge of driving without insurance, but convicted him of failing to report an occurrence and failing to pay road tax. He received two €400 fines and a one-year driving disqualification. Two other offences were taken into account.
The original judicial review grounds alleged unfairness because the defence had not received prosecution disclosure. The High Court found that the solicitor had asked the District Court to identify the charges but had not asked that court to order disclosure. The judge said the District Court had therefore not been asked to decide whether disclosure was needed. He was also not satisfied that the applicant had established that a disclosure request to the investigating Garda had been made and refused.
The proposed amended grounds concerned the refusal to adjourn, the mention of previous convictions, and the judge’s comments before hearing defence submissions. The High Court found no sufficient reason for failing to include those points in the original application. It said the proposed grounds were within the solicitor’s knowledge or understanding at the time, rather than arising from new evidence.
Considering the substance of the proposed grounds, the judge found that the applicant knew of the hearing date, had chosen not to attend at the appointed time and had not given the court a clear expected arrival time. The District Court was entitled to proceed in his absence. The High Court also found that the mention of two previous convictions arose after the defence solicitor raised the issue while seeking an adjournment over possible sentencing consequences.
The District Court judge initially said he intended to convict on the public order charge before the solicitor made submissions. The High Court found that he then heard and considered those submissions before deciding the charge, and that the applicant had not established bias or prejudgment. The judicial review was refused.