Motorists may escape speeding charges after High Court ruling

Motorists may escape speeding charges after High Court ruling


Anton McNulty

HUNDREDS of motorists around Mayo could have summonses for speeding dismissed following a High Court ruling on how speeding summonses were issued. In a case taken by Killala man, Michael Gilvarry the President of the High Court Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns found gardaí should have provided a summons with a photograph taken of his car on the day of the alleged offence before he was brought before the District Court. Mr Gilvarry of Killala was summonsed for allegedly driving at 93km per hour in an 80km per hour zone in Ballina on October 30, 2011. When the matter came before the District Court, Mr Gilvarry had argued the law required that before he could be convicted there had to be evidence before the court that he had been served before his trial with a photograph to show it was his car involved in the alleged offence. Judge Mary Devins referred a number of legal questions for clarification which meant a number of other speeding cases were adjourned in Mayo for the finalisation of the ruling. Last week, Mr Justice Kearns said it was insufficient, when dealing with a mandatory provision (Section 81.3) of the 2010 Road Traffic Act, for a garda to simply state that it is ‘normal or usually the case’ that a photo is included with the summons. He stated that this evidential shortfall can be ‘easily remedied’ if the statutory declaration under which a summons is served on a person were also to state that a ‘permanent visual record’ is attached (to the summons) and had been served on a defendant prior to trial. Mr Justice Kearns’ ruling could have implications for a number of people who have speeding charges pending in Mayo Two other legal questions referred to the High Court were dismissed by Mr Justice Kearns who said it was not necessary that the District Court should be provided with a copy of the contract between the Department of Justice and the Go Safe private company which operates speed detection vans. It was sufficient for the court to be given evidence that such a contract exists. He also dismissed the argument that the photograph, which is taken by the Go Safe vans, is tainted by virtue of having to been enhanced, or blown up, after it is downloaded through the computer system.