The High Court has rejected Diarmuid Creedon’s attempt to overturn a Road Traffic Act conviction on the basis that parts of his prosecution had earlier been dealt with in the wrong District Court district.
Creedon was charged with an offence under section 4(4)(a) and (5) of the Road Traffic Act 2010, alleged to have occurred on 17 July 2016 in District 18. The summons was initially returnable to Macroom District Court, also in District 18.
In February 2017, the case was adjourned by agreement to a court in District 19, which covers Cork City. Various procedural steps followed there during 2017 before the proceedings were returned to District 18. Creedon was convicted there on 25 January 2018 by District Judge Kelleher.
Creedon later sought judicial review, arguing that the earlier transfer and handling of the prosecution in District 19 exceeded jurisdiction and breached section 79 of the Courts of Justice Act 1924. He also relied on District Court rules governing where criminal cases should be heard.
Mr Justice Barrett held that the decisive issue was the jurisdiction existing on the date of conviction. District Judge Kelleher, although permanently assigned to District 19, had been temporarily assigned to District 18 and unquestionably had jurisdiction when he convicted Creedon there.
The court said Creedon had not established the necessary legal connection between the earlier District 19 proceedings and the validity of the later conviction. Even assuming for argument’s sake that everything done in District 19 amounted to a nullity, that did not invalidate the District 18 hearing on 25 January 2018.
The judge also noted that no breach of fair procedures was alleged and that Creedon had not sought relief against the earlier interim orders themselves.
The application to quash the conviction was therefore refused.