The High Court ruled that Stephen Burke’s admission that he was driving a motorcycle was made in response to a statutory demand and was involuntary, but that a statement made in response to a demand under section 107 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 is admissible in later criminal proceedings.
Mr Justice Binchy delivered the judgment on 3 October 2018 in a consultative case stated by District Judge David Kennedy. The case arose from two dangerous-driving charges before Bray District Court concerning alleged incidents on the N11 on 13 January 2016, at the Glen of the Downs, Delgany, and Kilmurry South, both in Co Wicklow.
Garda James Reynolds told the District Court that he had seen a motorcycle being driven dangerously and later called to Burke’s home. He said he required Burke, as the vehicle’s registered owner, to identify who had been driving. Burke told him three times that he did not know. Later that day, Burke contacted the Garda and said he had been driving. Reynolds accepted that the admission followed the section 107 demand. The District Court heard no evidence from Burke, and the Garda’s evidence was the only evidence described in the judgment.
The District Judge treated the admission as voluntary because it came several hours after the demand. The High Court held that the timing did not support that inference: the warning remained fresh, and Burke contacted the Garda within hours after initially saying he did not know who was driving. Mr Justice Binchy concluded that the only reasonable inference was that Burke made the statement in response to the statutory demand. The District Court’s finding that it was voluntary was unsupported by the evidence and was set aside.
On the legal question, the judge considered whether a statement given following a section 107 demand could be admitted in a prosecution under the Road Traffic Acts. He concluded that the limited requirement to identify a vehicle’s driver serves road safety and is proportionate. The judgment distinguished this from broader statutory demands for information and held that such a statement is admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings.
The High Court answered the second question in the case stated affirmatively and answered the reformulated third question that a statement made in response to a section 107 demand is admissible in subsequent criminal proceedings. The case stated addressed legal questions; the judgment does not report a final determination of the dangerous-driving charges by the District Court.