A critical assessment of the duty of District Court judges to give reasons

• Author: Harriet Burgess - Liam Dempsey
• Pages: 49-55

IRISH JUDICIAL STUDIES JOURNAL

[2017] Irish Judicial Studies Journal Vol 1 49

A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE DUTY OF DISTRICT

COURT JUDGES TO GIVEN REASONS

Harriet Burgess LLB (TCD) MSc (Oxon) and Liam Dempsey, BCL (UCD), LLM (QUB)

Introduction

The recent judgment of Oates v District Judge Browne & anor.,

1

delivered by the late Hardiman J.,

implies a stringent duty on District court judges to give reasons at trial. Whilst the judgment

provides a comprehensive overview of the jurisprudence and case law on the general duty to

give reasons, questions still remain as to the scope of the duty of District judges to provide

reasons, when read against previous Supreme Court judgments. This article will review the case

law on the duty to give reasons in a criminal court context in an attempt to outline the present

scope of the duty of District court judges to give reasons in the currency of a criminal trial.

The right of an accused to inspect and realistically test evidence, and the anterior duty of

District judges to give reasons at trial will be elaborated upon.

It will be argued that Oates marks a point of departure from the more pragmatically orientated

Supreme Court decisions of Kenny v. Judge Coughlan & The Director of Public Prosecutions,

2

and

O’Mahony v Ballagh,

3

towards an approach that places a greater emphasis on the rights of the

accused to fair procedures. The dictum of one of the most renowned Irish jurists reflects a

rebalancing of the relationship between the competing aims of efficiency and transparency.

This article aims to critically assess this rebalancing.

Further, academic literature and policy considerations will be reviewed in light of Oates, with

the aim of exploring whether or not the decision might be read in favour of arguments that

District court judges ought be required to be transparent in giving reasons at sentence. Whilst

Oates concerned a District judge failing to give reasons within the currency of a trial, a wider

reading of the judgment fits within a growing body of literature calling for greater transparency

in District court sentencing practices.

Import of Oates: right to realistically test evidence and the duty to give

reasons

The applicant in Oates had been charged with a drink driving offence. His solicitor sought to

have an expert examine the Intoxilyser, a machine now routinely used by the Gardai to analyse

breath specimens, having been put on inquiry as to the condition of the machine when it

produced a variation in readings. The District judge refused the applicant’s requests, and gave

no reasons for his refusal.

Charleton J. in the High Court decided not to disturb the conviction of drink driving, given

that there was no reason “whereby it could be said that the machine for breath testing alcohol

1

[2016] IESC 7 hereafter “Oates”

2

[2014] IESC 15 hereafter “Kenny”

3

[2001] IESC 99 hereafter “O’Mahony”