McNally v Martin

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Flaherty J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1995
• Neutral Citation: 1994 WJSC-SC 3611
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1995

1994 WJSC-SC 3611

THE SUPREME COURT

Hamilton C.J.

O'Flaherty J.

Denham J.

57/94

MCNALLY v. DISTRICT JUDGE MARTIN

PATRICK McNALLY

Applicant/Appellant

AND

DISTRICT JUDGE MARY MARTIN

Respondent

AND

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Notice Party

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S18(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1984 S5

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(3)

DPP O'DONOGHUE 1991 1 IR 448

SWEENEY V BROPHY 1993 2 IR 202

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S18

Synopsis:

CONSTITUTION

Personal rights

Fair procedures - Offence - Trial - Conduct - Advocate - Submissions - Judge - Response - Rejection - Relevant decision of High Court ignored by judge - Summary trial on two charges - Convictions of accused - Judicial review - Error outside jurisdiction of District Court in relation to second charge - Error did not affect validity of conviction on first charge - (57/94 - Supreme Court - 14/12/94) - [1995] 1 ILRM 350

|McNally v. Martin|

CRIMINAL LAW

Trial

Conduct - Advocate - Submissions - Judge - Response - Rejection - Relevant decision of High Court ignored by judge - Summary trial on two charges - Convictions of accused - Judicial review - Error outside jurisdiction of District Court in relation to second charge - Error did not affect validity of conviction on first charge - (57/94 - Supreme Court - 14/12/94) - [1995] 1 ILRM 350

|McNally v. Martin|

DISTRICT COURT

Judge

Error - Jurisdiction - Offence - Trial - Conduct - Refusal to permit relevant submission - Summary trial of offence within jurisdiction - Conviction invalidated because of error committed outside jurisdiction - (57/94 - Supreme Court - 14/12/94)

|McNally v. Martin|

NATURAL JUSTICE

Fair procedures

Offence - Trial - Conduct - Advocate - Submissions - Judge - Response - Rejection - Relevant decision of High Court ignored by judge - Summary trial on two charges - Convictions of accused - Judicial review - Error outside jurisdiction of District Court in relation to second charge - Error did not affect validity of conviction on first charge - (57/94 - Supreme Court - 14/12/94)

|McNally v. Martin|

1 Judgment of O'Flaherty J. delivered the14th day of December, 1994. [NEM DISS]

2 As recounted in the judgment of the High Court (Murphy J.) delivered 14th January, 1994, the applicant, Patrick McNally, sought by judicial review an order of certiorari quashing orders made by the respondent District Judge on the 22nd April, 1993. Mr. McNally was convicted on a charge brought pursuant to section 18(3) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, as amended by section 5 of the Road Traffic (Amendment), 1984 of feigning a heart attack with the intention of frustrating a prosecution under Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. He was further convicted of failing to give the necessary blood or urine sample to a designated medical practitioner contrary to section 13(3) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978 as amended by the 1984 act.

3 Both charges were heard together.

4 In relation to the section 13 charge it appears that there was an essential gap in the prosecution's proofs in that while the doctor called by the prosecution, Dr. De Feu, gave evidence that she was at the date of the hearing a registered medical practitioner no evidence was led as to whether she was such on the date that she came to examine the applicant, namely, the 28th July, 1992.

5 Counsel for the applicant sought to rely on a decision of the High Court (O'Hanlon J.): Director of Public Prosecutions.v. O'Donoghue [1991] 1 IR 448. The District Judge would not permit him to do so and stated:

"I know the case and the point raised in the case and will refuse it or any other point you make".

6 It is common case that on a number of occasions the District Judge said to counsel for the defendant: "you have a case to answer".

7 While the Director of Public Prosecutions conceded in the High Court that there was an absence of an essential proof in relation to the section 13 charge, he submitted that the matter could be corrected by way of appeal to the Circuit Court.

8 However, the learned High Court judge held that in respect of her conduct of the hearing in relation to that charge the applicant had been deprived of his basic rights of justice at his trial. He said:

"Where the accused is represented by counsel this involves hearing counsel both on fact and on the law. Whilst there must be a wide area of discretion for every court or other tribunal as to the manner in which it manages and conducts proceedings before it, including the limitation or abbreviation of excessive arguments or submissions, the rulings in the present case excluding the right to open the crucial legal report were so extreme as to render the judgment of the court in that respect unconstitutional."

9 He therefore quashed the conviction in relation to the section 13 charge obviously acting in accordance with the decision of this Court in Sweeney .v. Judge-Brophy [1993] 2 IR 202.

10 Counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions has not sought before us to disturb that finding.

11 The learned High Court judge, however, found that there was no particular problem or issue of law involved in the section 18 charge and that on the evidence it was open to the District Judge to convict on that charge, as she did. He went on to say:

"The fact that the trial judge erred in relation to the submission on the section 13 charge as a result either of her misunderstanding as to the evidence presented on that charge or the law in relation to it, would not of itself affect her decision on the other charge. What is said is that in her handling of the one charge she displayed (or would have been perceived by a bystander as displaying) a bias against the applicant which would...