A Dublin District Court judge has refused an application to dismiss charges against David O’Neill over alleged motor insurance offences, ruling that the prosecution evidence could support both charges.
Judge Brian O’Shea delivered the decision at Dublin District Court on 21 February 2019. The application was made at the close of the prosecution case, before the defence case. The judge’s decision refused the application; it did not determine whether Mr O’Neill was guilty.
The charges alleged that Mr O’Neill drove without insurance, contrary to section 56(1) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, and failed to produce an insurance certificate or exemption, contrary to section 69(1).
The judge said the evidence established that Mr O’Neill was driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place. A Garda demanded that he produce a certificate of insurance or exemption at a Garda station of his choice within ten days. Mr O’Neill nominated a station but did not produce the documents, according to the evidence described in the judgment.
The defence application argued that the Garda had not offered a certificate of guarantee as an alternative, so the prosecution could not rely on a presumption that the vehicle was being used unlawfully. The judgment considered the Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in *Attorney General v Shivnan* and subsequent legislation that ended the relevant guarantee provisions.
Judge O’Shea concluded that a lawful demand for an insurance certificate or exemption, coupled with evidence that neither was produced, could give rise to the section 56 presumption that the vehicle was being used in contravention of the insurance requirement. He said the separate presumption of non-production applies to a section 69(1) prosecution, not to proving a section 56 offence. For the section 69 charge, the Garda’s evidence that the documents were not produced was unnecessary to rely on as a presumption, the judge said.
The judge found the application without merit and refused it. The judgment records no final verdict or sentence.