The High Court quashed the part of a Circuit Court order refusing Natasha Rogers more time to appeal her dangerous-driving conviction, finding that she had not been given a chance to respond to prosecution submissions on a central legal issue before judgment was delivered.
Mr Justice MacGrath ruled on 14 March 2019 that the failure infringed Ms Rogers’s constitutional and natural-justice rights. The court’s order was limited to the refusal of an extension of time to appeal the dangerous-driving conviction. It did not disturb the separate decision granting her more time to appeal a conviction for failing to provide a breath sample.
Ms Rogers had been convicted in the District Court of dangerous driving and failing to provide a breath sample, arising from one driving incident, on 16 June 2015. After the time to appeal expired, a District Court judge refused her request for an extension. On 29 June 2016, the Circuit Court judge extended the appeal time for the breath-sample conviction but refused it for dangerous driving. Ms Rogers sought judicial review of that refusal.
The High Court examined transcripts of the Circuit Court proceedings. The state solicitor made submissions on the morning judgment was expected, following an invitation from the judge. The submissions addressed the breath-sample charge and the legal test for extending time to appeal in a criminal case. When Ms Rogers’s counsel tried to respond, the judge told him he did not need a reply and asked him to sit down. Counsel then sought the judge’s recusal; the judge refused and delivered judgment.
Mr Justice MacGrath concluded that, in the circumstances, the judge should have heard counsel’s response before deciding the application. The issue concerned the test governing an extension of time and was central to the case. The judge had also indicated the previous day that the remaining step was delivery of judgment. The High Court therefore allowed the judicial-review application on the right-to-be-heard ground.
The court rejected the separate claim that the Circuit Court judge had displayed bias. Considering the transcripts as a whole, Mr Justice MacGrath found no basis for a reasonable observer to apprehend that the judge was unable to hear the matter impartially. He also did not determine whether the Circuit Court judge had misapplied the extension-of-time test to the dangerous-driving conviction: the court noted that this challenge had not been clearly and precisely pleaded as a ground for review.
The judgment quashed only the refusal to extend the time to appeal the dangerous-driving conviction. It did not decide the merits of that conviction or grant the appeal itself.