Here, the Supreme Court held that, as the defendant (O’Brien) was not present in court for his conviction for a traffic offence, the District Court trial judge should have adjourned sentencing to a later date where he was considering a custodial sentence.
Background
O’Brien had numerous District Court convictions prior to this case, including for assault, possession of drugs, 14 offences under the Theft Act 2001 and motoring offences. This case relates to failure to stop a vehicle when directed by a garda and driving without road tax, insurance and not holding a driving licence. O’Brien was in court when the trial judge set the date for trial, but he did not attend court on the trial date. He was represented by a solicitor, though. The trial judge decided to proceed with the trial in O’Brien’s absence and found him guilty of the charges. O’Brien’s solicitor requested an adjournment for sentencing; the trial judge refused and sentenced O’Brien to four months imprisonment. O’Brien appealed that decision to the High Court.
High Court
Citing the Supreme Court authority of Brennan v Windle [2003] 3 I.R. 494, O’Brien sought an order quashing his conviction and sentence. In Brennan the Supreme Court overturned a conviction and custodial sentence in circumstances where Brennan was not in court and the trial judge had not even inquired if he had been made aware of the trial date.
Following that authority, Kearns P held that there was no need to adjourn the trial as O’Brien was aware of the trial date. However, as the trial judge was considering a custodial sentence, which that offence would not generally attract, the appropriate action was to issue a bench warrant to secure O’Brien’s presence in court for sentencing. The DPP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
The DPP sought to distinguish this case from Brennan on grounds that O’Brien was aware of the trial date. Rejecting the DPP’s appeal, Charleton J held that the requirements of natural justice are equally applicable to this case: where the trial judge was considering a custodial sentence, and where the offence does not normally attract a custodial sentence, the trial judge should have secured O’Brien’s attendance in court.
SCOIRLBLOG 