Speeding prosecutions in doubt after judge dismisses case against Offaly driver

NUMEROUS prosecutions for speeding could be in doubt after a decision by the District Court judge sitting in Offaly.

Judge Andrew Cody dismissed a summons for speeding because he decided that a copy of a nomination form was not admissible as evidence.

Owners of vehicles are often prosecuted for speeding after being recorded by a GoSafe operator even though they were not driving at the time.

The owner can complete what is known as a nomination form where the actual driver is named and then summonsed.

At this week's sitting of Tullamore District Court, Sergeant Brendan Kearns, court presenter, referred to the prosecution of Keelan Flynn (29), with an address at Cluain na Spideog, Co Offaly who was alleged to have exceeded the 120kph speed limit on the M6 motorway at Killavalley, Tyrrellspass on June 20 last year.

Sergeant Kearns said the summons had been previously before the court but was put back because the court wasn't satisfied with a certified copy of the nomination. He said the original nomination form was “not available to the court”.

Sergeant Kearns said An Garda Siochana processes about 200,000 fixed charge notices each year and “we're heavily reliant on an automated process for same”.

The nominations involve the scanning of the original statements of nominations. “The scanned versions of the statements of nomination then form part of the prosecutor pack,” he said.

He referred Judge Cody to sections of the Road Traffic Act and Criminal Evidence Act, saying that whether or not a document is still in existence, the court may approve an authenticated copy.

“I'm informed that the copy submitted in the prosecutor pack which is provided is a copy of the original received by the fixed charge processing office. I'm asking the court to admit it into evidence,” said Sergeant Kearns.

Judge Cody said it was his understanding, from publicly available tender documents, that a company called Tico Mail Ltd print the prosecution packs for the gardai.

“I believe that to be the case,” said Sergeant Kearns.

Judge Cody (pictured below) said the copy of the nomination form did not then come from An Garda Siochana but “from a printing company in Dublin”.

Sergeant Kearns said the original document is received by the fixed charge processing office who scan it to the company who produce the prosecution packs.

When the judge asked where the original was the sergeant said he could only assume it's held in the fixed charge processing office who received and then scanned the original.

READ NEXT: 'Unusual prosecution' of Offaly man comes before Tullamore District Court

Judge Cody then set out in detail how the process of nominating must be done within 28 days of the receipt of the notice by the vehicle owner.

“That form must be signed by the registered owner and state the name and address of the person who was driving at the time,” he said.

He said the relevant section of the legislation regarding the admissibility of the document, in this case a nomination form, states that it should be signed by the registered owner.

“It doesn't refer to a copy, it refers to an original,” he stated.

He said the court must be very careful when accepting a certificate or nomination form identifying another person in writing as having committed an offence.

The rules of evidence must be strictly adhered to, he said, adding that a copy must be authenticated.

“It's simply not sufficient to produce a document, it must be duly authenticated in a matter the court may approve,” he said.

“I have outlined several times previously that I expect such a document be certified as a true copy of the original and certified by a member of An Garda Siochana.”

He said the document tendered to him had not been authenticated “in any manner whatsoever” and had come “from a printing company, a nominated sub contractor of An Garda Siochana”.

He said the Supreme Court had identified that for documentary evidence to be proved, the best evidence rule applies.

The judge also said he had been given no explanation of where the original nomination is.

He ruled that because the document tendered by the sergeant was not admissible he was dismissing the case.

When Sergeant Kearns asked that the court admit the document as a copy of the original the judge repeated that it had to be “duly authenticated” and it had not been.

There were at least 10 further summonses involving GoSafe prosecutions and Sergeant Kearns applied for them to be adjourned, saying the matter would be referred to the DPP.

Judge Cody adjourned them all to October 22 next for mention, stating he anticipated there would be “30 or 40” of them by then.

Two solicitors present, Patrick Martin and Aisling Maloney, were representing a number of defendants similarly prosecuted and Judge Cody stressed that on October 22 such prosecutions would be before him for mention only.

He indicated the matter could come before the High Court. “I might give you a case stated,” he remarked.