The High Court has ruled that a District Judge was wrong to dismiss all but one of the charges against Pat and Owen O’Grady Limited arising from a 2005 stop of a heavily laden vehicle and trailer in Westport, County Mayo.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the judgment on 19 August 2009 in an appeal by way of Case Stated brought by the prosecutor. The question referred to the High Court was whether the District Judge had been correct to dismiss the charges. The High Court answered no. The judgment does not record findings of guilt or sentences on the charges.
Garda Michael Mullaney stopped the vehicle on 6 October 2005. It was driven by 17-year-old Pádraig Kilcoyne, whom the judgment says was employed by the company and carrying concrete blocks for reward. The company admitted at the District Court hearing that it owned the vehicle and trailer and had not submitted either for government testing or obtained a Road Freight Carrier’s Licence.
The prosecution evidence included that the combination weighed about 40 tonnes and that the trailer exceeded the cited laden-weight limit. A Department of Transport engineer gave evidence that the weight distribution could make the combination unsafe, affecting steering and braking. The judgment records those matters as evidence presented at the hearing.
The District Judge had dismissed the charges on grounds that included that the vehicle was not a “goods vehicle” and could not be tested or fitted with a tachograph. The District Judge gave no reason for dismissing several other charges. Only the charge of failing to display a rear number plate was not dismissed.
The High Court held that the District Judge had erred in dismissing charges concerning employing an unlicensed driver, exceeding the maximum load, trailer-mark requirements, roadworthiness certification, carrying merchandise without a licence, displaying a road transport plate, tachograph installation and use, aiding and abetting dangerous driving, and motor tax. On dangerous driving, the judge said the evidence gave rise to at least a prima facie case; he did not determine guilt.
The court’s conclusion was that the District Judge had erred in dismissing all but one of the charges. The judgment gives no further order directing a retrial or specifying what happened to the charges afterwards.