Ms Justice Gearty orders that religious bias case be remitted to Galway Circuit Court
900 words / 6.5 min read
Our High Court appeal this week (Monday 17 February 2020) was in relation to the conduct of Circuit Court Judge Petria McDonnell during a hearing on 18 June 2019. We argued that Judge McDonnell’s conduct demonstrated objective bias and prejudgment and that she ought to be recused from hearing our religious discrimination case against NUI Galway.
At the outset of the Circuit Court hearing on 18 June 2019, Judge McDonnell stated that our case was “moot”. This was a manifestly false and perverse statement. After we objected, Judge McDonnell falsely denied that she had made a statement and said that she had simply asked a question. She did so on several occasions. She persistently refused to retract or apologise for her statement (we asked her to retract the statement at least six times during the morning and the afternoon; on each occasion the Judge emphatically refused to do either). The Judge doubled down several times on her statement that our proceedings were moot, saying at one point: “the one issue has already been conceded”. In brief, Judge McDonnell was of a fixed mindset that our case was moot, when it most definitely was not.
High Court appeal rejected
We appealed Judge McDonnell’s refusal to recuse herself to the High Court. The recently appointed Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty heard the appeal on Monday 17 February 2020 and delivered her judgment on 18 February 2020. Ms Justice Gearty did not allow our appeal. She held that the conduct of Judge Petria McDonnell did not demonstrate objective bias or prejudgment and that there was no reason for Judge McDonnell to recuse herself. She ordered that our religious discrimination case against NUI Galway be re-listed for hearing at Galway Circuit Court.
Plaintiffs “failed to help” Judge
Although Ms Justice Gearty agreed that the Plaintiffs’ case was indeed not moot, she said that Judge Petria McDonnell was “trying to understand what the issues [were]” and all four Plaintiffs were “failing to help her”. She said that the Plaintiffs should have offered “assistance” to the Judge and an “explanation” as to why the case was not moot. She said: “the Judge repeatedly asks for assistance and does not get it”. She said that the Plaintiffs told the Judge that her comment was “offensive” but never explained why it was offensive and that that was a lack on their part: “the reason offence was taken was never once communicated to her”.
This is despite that fact that Isaac Burke had clearly informed Judge Petria McDonnell during the hearing on 18 June 2019 that her statement “displayed a profound disregard for the nature and the extent of the sanction over the four years” and that her words showed “a deep misunderstanding of the nature of the case”.
Judge’s false statement was “perfectly reasonable”
In relation to the comment itself, Ms Justice Gearty said that the comment made by Judge Petria McDonnell was “entirely predictable” and “perfectly reasonable”. She said that any judge would naturally think the case was moot and that “most judges would have made such a comment”. According to her, “the misunderstanding was on the part of the Plaintiffs, not the Judge”. She said that the way the Plaintiffs reacted was an “overreaction”. She said that the Judge was “entitled to express an opinion”.
No need for Judge to retract false statement
She said: “it was the Plaintiffs who had a fixed mindset, not the Judge”. [This is despite the fact that we asked the Judge on at least six different occasions during the morning and the afternoon to retract and apologise, and on each occasion the Judge emphatically refused to do either]. She said that “there was no need for the Judge to retract or apologise” and that “the Judge was right not to do so”.
In relation to the fact that the Judge had denied she made a statement, Ms Justice Gearty said that the Judge had indeed made a statement (not a question), but was only “under a misapprehension” in that regard. She said that, as a judge, “it’s impossible to take note of what you are saying” and that it is “common to be mistaken” in relation to what you said a few moments earlier.
Judges “do not have time” to read legal submissions
She said that Judge Petria McDonnell could not be expected to know the legal basis of the Plaintiffs proceedings (claims under the Equal Status Acts). She said that Judges “do not have time to prepare individual cases” or read submissions before the case starts. She said that it is “incumbent on litigants to explain the case”. She said she did not accept that “because the Judge heard a preliminary hearing of the case beforehand, she should remember [the legal basis]”.
Due regard for judicial principles “lacking” in ruling
After delivery of the judgment on Tuesday, Isaac Burke put it to Ms Justice Gearty that she was sending the case back to be heard by “someone who believes the case is moot”. Ms Justice Gearty did not respond to this.
It is our opinion that Ms Justice Gearty’s ruling paints a bleak picture of the state of the administration of justice in Ireland. Judges are required to uphold and to exemplify impartiality, integrity, competence and diligence. We believe that Ms Justice Gearty’s ruling is sadly lacking in a due regard for those judicial principles. We are considering all of our options going forward in relation to this case.
[posted Saturday 22 February 2020]
Correction: An earlier version of this article stated: ‘Ms Justice Gearty orders that religious bias case be heard by [Judge] who considers it ‘moot’ ‘. This is not exactly correct. The High Court order handed down by Ms Justice Gearty orders, inter alia, that ‘the matter be remitted to Galway Circuit Court to be listed before a Judge assigned to the Galway Circuit at the next Sitting to be held at Galway’. Thus Ms Justice Gearty did not specifically send the case back to be heard by Judge McDonnell. The case will be assigned to a Judge of the Circuit Court in due course. It remains to be seen whether that Judge will be Judge McDonnell.
