Hudson v Judge Halpin and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Hogan
• Judgment Date: 15 January 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] IEHC 4
• Docket Number: [No. 1153 J.R./2011]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 15 January 2013

[2013] IEHC 4

THE HIGH COURT

[No. 1153 J.R./2011]

Hudson v Judge Halpin & DPP

BETWEEN/

GERARD HUDSON

APPLICANT

AND

JUDGE ANTHONY HALPIN AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENTS

R v CROWN COURT EX PARTE INTERNATIONAL SPORTING CLUB LTD 1982 QB 304

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1848 (UK)

SUMMARY JURISDICTION (IRELAND) ACT 1851

R v NAT BELL LIQUORS LTD 1922 2 AC 128

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT 1924

O'CONNOR v CARROLL 1999 2 IR 160

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Discovery

Application for discovery for production of digital audio recording of District Court hearing - Seeking to quash conviction - Factual issue - Cost implications - Courts of summary jurisdiction - Record of proceedings - Whether just to order production of recording - R v Crown Court ex p International Sporting Club Ltd [1982] QB 304; R v Nat Bell Liqours Ltd [1922] 2 AC 128 and O'Connor v Carroll [1999] 2 IR 160 considered - Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act 1851 (14 & 15 Vict, c 92) - The Courts of Justice Act 1924, (No 10) - Application granted (2011/1153JR - Hogan J - 15/1/2013) [2013] IEHC 4

Hudson v Judge Halpin

Facts: The applicant had been convicted in the District Court of a breach of place of safety order. He contended his trial had been conducted in an unfair manner by the District Judge. He now sought a production order in respect of the audio recording of his trial.

Held by Hogan J, that the historical problem with convictions being overturned for technicalities had resulted in an effort to streamline the record keeping of courts. As the instant case involved serious allegations against the District Judge, the just method of determining the matter would be to require production of the order. R v Crown Court, ex p International Sporting Club Ltd [1982] QB 304 applied.

Mr. Justice Hogan

1 In these judicial review proceedings the applicant seeks to quash a conviction in respect of a breach of a place of safety order imposed by the respondent District Judge. The applicant maintains - and the District Judge stoutly denies - that the judge interfered with the cross-examination and otherwise conducted the hearing in an unfair manner. The issue which I am here required to consider at this juncture is whether this Court can and should make an order for the production of the digital audio recording of the hearing before the District Court following an application in that behalf by means of a discovery application brought on behalf of the applicant. In these circumstances I propose to say as little as possible concerning the underlying dispute.

2 This discovery application raises again the age-old problem of bringing before this Court in judicial review proceedings the record of what has happened in proceedings before either the District Court or the Circuit Court. This problem really dates back to the creation of courts of summary jurisdiction, since before the days of electronic recording devices, a tendency emerged whereby such courts recited at length in their record of proceedings all that had happened before them. But judicial review by certiorari led to a situation whereby many criminal convictions of this kind were quashed for what was then judicially described as "lamentable and disgraceful technicalities". As Griffith L.J. put it inR. v. Crown Court, ex p. International Sporting Club Ltd. [1982] QB 304, 312, it had been legislatively determined:-

"to put a stop to the over-formalistic approach of the lawyers which allowed the conviction by the lower courts to be...