Judge clarifies drink-drive jailings view

Judge John Neilan has said he never proposed to impose immediate seven-day jail sentences on drunk drivers

Judge John Neilan has said he never proposed to impose immediate seven-day jail sentences on drunk drivers. Liam Horan reports.

In an interview with the Roscommon Champion newspaper, Judge Neilan said he would have put a stay on all custody orders to see if the drunken driver was a suitable candidate for a Community Service Report.

Judge Neilan had not mentioned the possibility of a Community Service Report before now. Judge Neilan told one defendant in Mullingar District Court to have his "bags packed" when he appeared before him again next month.

Earlier this month, Judge Neilan's plan to send all drunken drivers to prison was described as "unlawful" and "unconstitutional" by the Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell.

READ MORE

"At the end of the day, the judiciary are independent. "But it is not possible for a judge in the case of drunk-driving to say that part of his procedure will be to remand persons whom he has convicted in custody for a week while considering sentence. "The law does not permit that, the Constitution doesn't permit that," Mr McDowell had said.

Judge Neilan countered by criticising Mr McDowell for trying to humiliate and bully him, and also of trying to interfere with the independence of the judiciary.

Last Thursday, Judge Neilan said that in view of the controversy that had arisen, he was "imposing a self-imposed moratorium on hearing drunk-driving cases for six months". This was to display his "absolute belief that the administration of justice is above reproach".

In his Roscommon Champion interview, Judge Neilan said: "It would appear that when the Minister was asked for his view of this, he immediately declared it unlawful and unconstitutional.

"This was a proposal by me to elevate the profile and tragedy of drunken drivers and the Minister did not even consider what was going to be the next part of the court order.

"For his information, and for all those uneducated in the practise and procedure of the District Court, the next part of the order would have read: Warrant not to issue for seven, 30, 60 (whatever) days until the court had received a Community Service Report to see whether the defendant before the court was a suitable candidate for community service work. "At the very least, I would have thought that the Minister, when presented with this question, would have considered the myriad of orders available to the District Court before launching into what I can only describe as an intimidating and humiliating statement."