THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW 
			No. 56 J.R./1995
PATRICIA HERRON
			APPLICANT
AND
DISTRICT JUDGE HAUGHTON, 
BARRY GALVIN, CORK STATE SOLICITOR, 
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, 
THE COMMISSIONER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA, 
GARDA W. A. O'CONNELL, SERGEANT W. J. GLEESON, 
THE MINISTER FOR JUSTICE, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 
			RESPONDENTS

Judgment delivered by Mr. Justice O'Higgins on the 12th day of  May,  1998.

	By Order of Barron J. dated Tuesday the 21st February, 1995 the Applicant was given leave to apply by way of Judicial Review for an Order of Certiorari quashing the Conviction Orders made against the Applicant by the first named Respondent at Cork District Court on the 15th day of February 1995 on the grounds that the Applicant was not permitted to call evidence to the effect that the list of previous convictions had not been given fully and that the failure to give a full list of such previous convictions deprived the Applicant of the defence she was making to the proceedings.
	The Applicant has in train other proceedings for Judicial Review 
No. 65 J.R. 1996 which are the subject matter of separate proceedings.  In these proceedings the Applicant sought leave to argue additional grounds but I refused such application and confined the Applicant to arguing the grounds allowed by Mr. Justice Barron. 
	Notwithstanding that ruling, the Plaintiff continued to argue a number of other points concerning the conduct of the proceedings in the District Court - the Court having given very wide latitude to a lay litigant.  Those points concerned:
(a)	The transcript.
(b)	Article 40 of the Constitution.
(c)	The date of previous convictions.
(d)	The number of previous convictions.
(e)	The failure to be allowed to call witnesses.
(f)	The potential committal for contempt, I propose to deal with these matters seriatim.  
She was not allowed, however, to argue the allegation of a long-standing conspiracy against her, or allegations of perjury against Mr. Galvin, who did not give evidence in the District Court in the case under review.
          	The convictions sought to be impugned were in relation to the 19th August, 1994 in respect of which date the Applicant was convicted of an offence of no tax displayed and fined £100 and also of an offence of failing to wear a safety belt in respect of which she was fined £25.  A transcript of the proceedings was produced in Court and Mr. Galvin was cross-examined as was Mr. Joe Dutton of Doyle Stenographers.
(a)	The Transcript
  (i)	 A number of complaints were made about the accuracy of the transcript.  The Applicant contends that the sentence on page 23 "That queries my ruling on the law" should read "Do not query my ruling on the law". 
 (ii)	At page 29 that the transcript should read "Justice Henry Barron gave me an injunction" whereas in fact the transcript reads "Justice Henry Barron failed to give me an injunction"
(iii)	That a passage beginning on page 30.  
	"All I am saying is that the Guard, he did not challenge me at the time he was asking about the tax.  It was when he was leaving and he said, almost as an afterthought, 'and the next time wear your seatbelt'  to which I replied 'I always wear my seatbelt'"
	It is contended that this passage which in the transcript is attributed to 
	Mr. Justice Haughton (sic) was actually spoken by the witness and finally at page 35:
 (iv)	Mrs Herron - "My Lord this is a road traffic offence and this is a deliberate attempt by Mr. Galvin to blacken me."
	The Applicant contends that the transcript should read "This is not a road traffic offence".  It is also alleged that Mr. Dutton spoke to Garda Harte after the proceedings and took a list of convictions which he then copied down to supplement his transcript.  
	In relation to these matters I find the following:-   First of all Mr. Dutton is an expert and an extremely experienced stenographer with over twenty-five years experience in the Department of Justice before working with Doyle Court Reporters.  He is also in my assessment an extremely truthful witness.  It has to be borne in mind that the transcript was not in existence at the District Court proceedings and was not relied on by anybody in those proceedings.  Furthermore, I accept unreservedly the evidence of Mr. Dutton that he did not compile his list of convictions for a transcript from talking to Garda Harte as alleged.  The alleged inaccuracies in the transcript, even if they were proved, do not appear to me to have any bearing on any issue that I have to decide.
(b)	ARTICLE 40 OF THE CONSTITUTION
	That the first named Respondent was erroneous in relation to his knowledge of fundamental constitutional law, resulting in prejudice towards the Applicant's witness and the Applicant. 
	It is the law that applications for an inquiry under Section 40 challenging the illegal detention of persons held in custody may be properly and legally made by a stranger acting on behalf of the person alleged to be so detained.  A witness for the Applicant gave evidence that he made such inquiries.  The judge erroneously was of the view that it would be an offence for a non-lawyer to make such an application.  That error by the learned Judge does not appear to me to be any way germane, to the decision he finally made, and there is no evidence before this Court to show that it in any way prejudiced the Judge against the Applicant in determining the criminal case before him.  
(c)	THE DATE OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
	After conviction the Guard gave evidence that the Applicant was convicted on the 4th April, 1993 at Cork District Court, no tax displayed, two counts and on each count fined £20.  The Judge said 
	"You have previous convictions for tax not displayed in 1991 and 1992.  The last and most recent one being on the 8th April, 1992 and you were fined £20 on each of two summonses for tax not displayed".
	In fact, as per the Guard's evidence, the learned District Judge was incorrect in so stating.  The Applicant criticises Mr. Galvin for not pointing out that error to the Judge.  Mr. Galvin said in evidence in this Court that he did not avert to the matter.  I accept his evidence.  In any event, the date that the District Judge thought correct, being a year earlier than the evidence given by the Guard, could not have worked to the prejudice of the Applicant in relation to penalty - on the contrary it would have operated in ease of penalty if it mattered at all.  The allegation that in some way it would help to prove her conspiracy theory is, in my view, quite unsustained.
(d)	THE NUMBER OF PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS
	The Applicant complains that Mr. Galvin did not give a full list of the previous convictions of the Applicant at Question 131 at page 37 in the transcript: 
	"After the Guard had given evidence of some previous convictions Mr. Galvin said 'I do not need any more Guard'.  The Judge then asked Mrs. Herron did she want to ask the Guard any more questions."
	The Applicant now complains that it was wrong and in some way prejudicial to her that Mr. Galvin did stop the Guard from giving the full list of convictions.  I cannot accept that contention.  It is frequent practice for State Solicitors as prosecutors in such matters as this to not ask for an exhaustive list of previous convictions.  Furthermore it is a frequent practice of Judges to adopt the same approach.  The Applicant suggests that by not giving the full list of convictions, Mr. Galvin was acting from some sinister motive.  I do not accept this contention.  I accept that the decision was in ease of the Applicant and not adverse to her interests.  Furthermore, she was asked "Now do you want to ask the Guard any question Mrs Herron?" and she declined so to do.  If the Applicant felt in any way aggrieved, I have no doubt that she would have asked the appropriate questions.  She is no stranger to Court, and no stranger to legal proceedings, and there is not any evidence before me that she was cowed or intimidated.  Notwithstanding the criticism of the State for failing to adduce evidence of more of her convictions, the Applicant makes the point that those convictions were not properly proven, as there was non-compliance with the proper procedure for proving previous convictions.  The point was not taken at the time, it was not one of the grounds on which Mr. Justice Barron permitted the Judicial Review to take place, did not operate in anyway unfairly on the Applicant as the convictions were and are unchallenged as to their validity.  In those circumstances it seems to me that I should not quash the Order of the District Court on that basis.  
	In considering the imposition of penalty the learned Judge said:
	"The record, far from corroborating the allegations you have made of harassment and constant prosecution by the Guards - or persecution by the Guards, put it that way - shows that not to be the case because your last conviction was in 1992."  
	This statement was made after the conviction and therefore could not have influenced the learned Judge in arriving at his decision.  The Applicant makes the case that by undermining her allegations of harassment it could have influenced the penalty.  However it seems to me that the curtailment of the list of previous convictions is much more likely to have worked in her favour,  besides which the Applicant says that the imposition of penalty is not the thrust of her proceedings here.  Furthermore it is not covered in the grounds permitted by Mr. Justice Barron and permitted by this Court to be argued.  

(e)	THE FAILURE TO ALLOW APPLICANT TO CALL WITNESS 

	The Applicant further complains that her trial was unsatisfactory in so far as the learned Judge did not allow the Mr. Barry Galvin the Prosecutor to be called in evidence.  The matter is dealt with at page 32 in the transcript and runs as follows:

	"Mr. Justice Haughton - 'Now you have indicated to me Mrs. Herron, that you want to call Mr. Galvin to give evidence on your behalf'.
	 Mrs. Herron	- '...No.  Not on my behalf'. 
	 Mr. Justice Haughton	- 'If you are calling him as a witness on your behalf and if you are calling him when he is called to the stand you will be bound by his evidence.  Do you want to call him, first of all.  
	 Mrs. Herron	- 'Yes.
	 Mr. Justice Herron 	- '... Now, would you explain to me on what basis you feel you are entitled to call Mr. Galvin, the Prosecutor to give evidence on your behalf.
	 Mrs. Herron	- '...Well, first of all it is usually an Inspector who conducts or prosecutes cases on behalf of the people.  He is a member of the State - he is the State Solicitor - and usually it is an Inspector who prosecutes.  Secondly, I believe that he is a party in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.  
	Mr. Galvin	- 	'.. Judge, I object to this lady now trying to make this Court a forum for political purposes and she is scandalising the Court and is not bound by it.  The officers of the Court are bound by the Court rules in the evidence they give and she must be bound by the same rules.  All she is doing is abusing the privilege of the Court. 
	Mrs. Herron	- '.. My Lord.  I am not attempting to abuse this Court and I am stating what I believe to be an infringement of my rights.
	Mr. Justice Haughton - ' .. All right.  In order to establish that do you want to call Mr. Galvin?
	Mrs. Herron	 - '... Yes.
	Mr. Justice Haughton - 'I am not permitting you to do so and the allegation is irrelevant to these particular proceedings.  Do you want to call any other witness?'
	Mrs. Herron	- 	'...No.  May I say about the tax, which is one of the issues  I merely want to question Mr. Galvin about.  In 1990 a car which I was driving was seized by a member of An Garda Siochana in Cork City.  I was told I would be prosecuted and I waited for the prosecution.' 
	Mr. Justice Haughton - 	' .. Is this related to the litigation or on what basis is it relevant?'
	Mrs. Herron 	- 	'If you just give me the time it will become relevant.' 
	Mr. Justice Haughton - '.. That may be something that is in mitigation.  You have admitted that the car was not taxed and that summons, if you have no more evidence to call or no further submissions to make as to the legal position, I have to determine whether you are guilty or not guilty, first, before I hear any address you may wish to make with regard to this issue before us, have you any legal submissions to make.'
	Mrs. Herron	- 	'No. '"

	It appears to me from the foregoing that the reason that the Judge made an Inquiry as to the relevance of the evidence and that the Applicant intended to adduce from Mr. Galvin and that he ruled the matter to be irrelevant.  In my view, having regard to the totality of the proceedings, and the evidence given, the Judge was within his jurisdiction and entitled to make the ruling he did.  It is very frequently the function of a Judge to adjudicate on the relevance of evidence called or proposed to be called.  The fact that the Judge did not allow Mr. Galvin to be called by the Applicant does not afford any grounds for having the conviction quashed.
(f)    	THE POTENTIAL COMMITAL FOR CONTEMPT
	Finally the Applicant complains that her trial was unfair by reason of 
    	(a)  a threat to have her committed for contempt of Court,
     	(b)  bias towards Mr. Galvin, by the Judge.
	In relation to these matters a perusal of the transcript shows those complaints to be unjustified.  The mention of committal for contempt arose in relation to an apparent unwillingness of the Applicant to abide by a ruling of the Judge.  In my view, the Judge was quite entitled to act as he did and acted within jurisdiction.  It is vitally important for the administration of justice that the High Court should not seek to interfere with the freedom of a trial judge in the conduct of a trial, unless the requirements of justice so demand.  Likewise the allegations that the Judge was biased in favour of Mr. Galvin or that the trial was unfair, are manifestly not borne out by the evidence.
	Accordingly, the Applicant is not entitled to the relief sought.