The High Court ruled that a defendant’s spent convictions could be admitted in criminal proceedings against him, including when the court considers whether to disqualify him from driving after an insurance offence.
Mr Justice Noonan delivered the judgment on 27 November 2018 in a consultative case stated from the District Court in Wexford. Judge Haughton referred two questions about the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016.
The defendant had pleaded guilty in the District Court to driving without insurance, an offence under section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. Evidence for the defence was that he had motor insurance at the time and honestly believed it covered his driving, but that it did not. His solicitor asked the District Court to consider whether a special reason justified avoiding a driving disqualification.
The prosecuting Garda told the District Court that the defendant had previous convictions. The judgment records two earlier convictions for driving without insurance, both from 2008, as well as other road traffic convictions from that year. The judgment states that the convictions were spent under the 2016 Act.
The Act generally bars evidence of spent convictions in court proceedings, subject to exceptions. The High Court held that section 7(3)(a) allows evidence of a person’s spent conviction in criminal proceedings where that person is a party. It agreed with both parties’ submissions that the District Court could admit the earlier convictions and that section 7(3)(a) made them admissible. The court said the judge did not need to be satisfied that admitting the evidence was in the interests of justice; the court was obliged to hear evidence of previous convictions before sentencing.
The High Court answered “yes” to both questions, with the first question amended to remove the interests-of-justice wording. It did not decide the defendant’s application for a reduced or avoided disqualification. It said the offence could not be treated as a “first offence” for the purposes of section 65(5)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 2010, on which that application had been based.