The High Court has ruled that a man could not be convicted of driving without insurance on the evidence recorded in a case stated from the District Court, where the prosecution relied on what an insurer’s employee reportedly told a Garda rather than admissible proof of the policy’s terms.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys answered “No” to the District Court judge’s question about whether the charge should be upheld. The case concerned an alleged offence under section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The High Court’s answer was limited to the evidence referred to in the case stated; it did not determine whether the insurance policy in fact made cover conditional on compliance with a learner permit.
The accused, Michael Sherlock, was stopped by gardaí at Deerpark Estate, Ennistymon, on 28 September 2018. He held a learner permit, not a driving licence, and was not accompanied by a qualified driver. The charge before the District Court alleged that he used a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place without insurance. The judgment says he was separately charged with unlicensed driving and, according to information given to the High Court, pleaded guilty to that offence.
The case stated recorded that Sherlock produced a certificate of insurance, which on its face covered driving on the date in question. An investigating Garda said an insurer had told him that it would compensate a third party for a loss and seek to recover the cost from Sherlock. The High Court said that account was hearsay and inadmissible. Even if accepted as true, it did not establish that the insurer would not indemnify the insured; “seek to” recover was too vague to prove that in a criminal prosecution.
The judge said whether a policy covers a driver who breaches a learner permit condition depends on the wording of the individual policy. He distinguished cases where the policy did not make compliance a condition from cases where it did. Here, the certificate was not before the District Court, and the case stated did not establish that a statutory demand for proof of insurance had been made and left unanswered. The prosecution therefore had not proved a policy condition was breached or that the statutory presumption of no insurance applied.
The High Court said a prosecution in a future case where a certificate is produced would need admissible evidence proving breach of a policy condition. It answered the case stated on the evidence described and ordered that Sherlock benefit from legal aid under section 5 of the Criminal Justice (Legal Aid) Act 1962.