Casino wins challenge over judge’s refusal to withdraw from hearing case

A casino has won its challenge aimed at preventing a district court judge hearing its prosecution for allegedly selling alcoholic beverages without a liquor licence.

Mr Justice Charles Meenan said Midnight Entertainment Ltd, which runs a casino in Galway city, was entitled to an order quashing Judge Mary Fahy’s refusal to recuse herself from hearing a prosecution brought against the casino. The company operates the 4 Aces Club at Dominick Street, Galway.

It is charged with selling certain intoxicating liquor without being duly licensed to do so on November 28th 2015 contrary to Section 7 of the 1924 Intoxicating Liquor Act.

It denies any wrongdoing and intends to fully defend the prosecution. It says it is a private members’ club and does not require a liquor licence.

It claimed Judge Fahy, who had been due to hear the prosecution before Galway District Court, had made remarks in a previous, similar court case against a director of the company in 2015.

On that occasion, Judge Fahy found the director guilty, imposed a six month suspended prison sentence on him and remarked, if the premises was a “genuine casino”, it “must” have a liquor licence.

When the second prosecution came before the District Court in January 2017 the company asked Judge Fahy to recuse herself. It claimed the judge’s remarks in the earlier case when the director was charged gave rise to a reasonable apprehension the company would not receive a fair hearing from an impartial judge.

After Judge Fahy refused, the company brought High Court proceedings seeking to quash her refusal on grounds including the judge acted outside of her jurisdiction, unreasonably and irrationally by not recusing herself. The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the application.

In his judgment on Friday, Mr Justice Meenan said he was mindful District Judges bear an extremely heavy workload and it is often the case the same persons appear before them on a regular basis.

While it did not follow that district judges are obliged to remove themselves when this happens, in this particular case, the charges were the same with the only difference being that on the first occasion the charges were brought against a company director whereas on the second occasion the same charges were brought against the company itself, he said. In the circumstances, the company is entitled to the relief sought, he ruled.