The High Court has quashed Martin Feehan’s District Court convictions for dangerous driving causing serious harm and remitted the proceedings for further trial, ruling that the District Court had no jurisdiction to try the charges after he pleaded not guilty.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 21 March 2018 in a judicial review brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). He also extended the time for the DPP’s application. The judgment does not determine whether Mr Feehan committed the alleged offences.
The case arose from a five-vehicle collision on the Mallow-Cork road on 16 February 2015. The judgment says it was alleged that a van driven by Mr Feehan moved onto the wrong side of the road as lanes merged and collided with a truck. A young woman suffered serious injuries, including a brain injury.
A Chief Superintendent directed that Mr Feehan be charged with three offences of dangerous driving causing serious harm without first sending a file to the DPP. The judgment states that Gardaí could not direct that charge without submitting a file to the DPP.
At a District Court trial in March 2016, Mr Feehan was convicted on one summons and fined €500 and disqualified from driving for two years. The other two summonses were taken into consideration. The written orders incorrectly recorded guilty pleas and DPP consent to summary trial; the judgment says Mr Feehan had pleaded not guilty and the DPP had not consented. His appeal against conviction and sentence was pending in the Circuit Court.
The High Court found that the charges were indictable and that, following the not-guilty pleas, the District Court had no jurisdiction to try them summarily. Applying the Supreme Court’s decision in DPP v O’Buachalla, Mr Justice Barrett said the appropriate course was to quash the convictions and remit the proceedings. He also prohibited the Circuit Court appeal from proceeding and ordered a stay of that appeal.
In granting an extension of time, the judge accepted that the DPP’s reasons for delay were sufficient and that the relevant circumstances were outside her control or could not reasonably have been anticipated. He weighed the public interest in prosecution on indictment against Mr Feehan’s fair-trial rights and other claimed effects, and found the public interest outweighed them. He said the evidence did not show that the delay compromised trial fairness. He also rejected the contention that the earlier trial meant Mr Feehan had revealed the defence he would use at a trial on indictment.
The DPP had stated an intention to prosecute Mr Feehan on indictment on one charge. The High Court’s order remitted the matters for further trial in accordance with law; it did not decide the proposed charge.