Speeding prosecutions on hold as nomination forms issue is referred to High Court

A District Court judge has accused the DPP of frustrating his referral of a point of law to the High Court.

Judge Andrew Cody said the DPP was attempting to interfere with a judicial process where he wished to state a case to the High Court on the admissibility of nomination forms in speeding prosecutions.

Judge Cody made the comment at Tullamore District Court after the DPP sought to withdraw a summons against a driver which accused him of speeding in Co Offaly in 2024.

The judge had previously indicated his intention to state a case on the matter after an issue was raised about the nomination form which is used when a person being prosecuted for speeding nominates someone else as the driver.

At Tullamore District Court in December, Andrew Dunne, BL, appearing for John Christopher O'Dea (63), Colt, Ballyroan, Co Laois, applied to Judge Cody not to admit a nomination form.

READ NEXT: Housing scheme planned for Offaly town

Mr O'Dea had been summonsed for allegedly exceeding the 80km/h speed limit on the N80 road at Ballynasrah, Killeigh, Co Offaly on August 19, 2024.

The evidence from a GoSafe operator was that he was travelling at 90 km/h.

Sergeant Brendan Kearns, court presenter, handed in a certificate of nomination and said it was an “exact copy” of the original which would be held by the Garda fixed charge office in Thurles.

Sergeant Kearns said the copy had been printed by a company called Tico Print Limited in Dublin.

Judge Cody said the issue was a simple one and turned on the question: “Is the prosecution entitled to rely on what they purport to be a photocopy of the original nomination form, provided as part of the prosecution pack by a third party where it has not been duly authenticated?”

The judge said the DPP could make a submission to him in advance of him stating a case on the matter.

After it was indicated to him last month that the DPP might wish to withdraw its prosecution of Mr O'Dea, Judge Cody said he would not allow it to be withdraw as it had been “part heard” and said a submission could be made by March 11.

When the case came before him today (Wednesday, March 11) Sandra Mahon, Offaly state solicitor, said the DPP had directed the summons be withdrawn because “tachograph evidence” had emerged in December had left a “clear doubt”.

Ms Mahon said it was the opinion of the director that a case stated was not warranted or necessary.

She added that the State was not in a position to provide a certified copy of the nomination form but the DPP was also of the view the court's position had merit.

Judge Cody (pictured below) said it was accepted the DPP had exclusive jurisdiction over prosecutions and the Supreme Court had confirmed the DPP was entitled to change course in a prosecution, including its discontinuation even when it was part heard.

He said the District Court could only ever refuse to allow the withdrawal of a case in “extremely rare scenarios” and all courts had an inherent jurisdiction to “prevent abuse of process”.

“Irish courts retain a constitutional duty to prevent an abuse of process and to ensure the integrity of the justice system,” said the judge.

He said that supervisory jurisdiction “cannot be ousted”, even by the DPP's constitutional independence.

“Thus if the DPP decides to withdraw proceedings and that is used deliberately to avoid or interrupt judicial scrutiny, the court may intervene.”

He said he had decided to state a case, beginning with a draft referral, and counsel for the accused “had made submissions and the DPP had not”.

After 10 weeks of no engagement and having decided to state the case the DPP at the “very last minute” asked for the prosecution to be withdrawn.

“I am satisfied that the withdrawal of this prosecution is deliberately aimed at avoiding a case stated so as to prevent the High Court adjudicating on this point.”

He said the reason put forward to him about the tachograph made “no sense” and was “entirely spurious”.

“The decision to withdraw the prosecution is an effort by the DPP to defeat judicial oversight and will not be permitted,” said Judge Cody.

He claimed the timing of the DPP's withdrawal suggested an intention to avoid a ruling which would clarify “an important and recurring legal issue”.

He said he was stating the case to the High Court on the issue of the admissibility of the nomination forms and adjourned the prosecution of Mr O'Dea to December 2 because it “would generally take nine to 12 months” for a ruling to be given.

A number of other similar prosecutions before the court were adjourned to the same date.

Stating a case to the High Court will result in speeding prosecutions involving nomination forms being put on hold until a ruling is given.

The court had previously been told by Sergeant Kearns that the gardai are “heavily reliant” on an automated process which involves scanning the original nominations as they are received.

He said it would be a “hugely retrograde step” for the efficiency of An Garda Siochana processes to produce the original documents in court.