The Court of Appeal reduced Rafael Dudek’s driving disqualification from 10 years to six after finding there was not a sufficient evidential basis for the longer period.
The court quashed the disqualification part of the Circuit Court order and substituted a six-year ban. The appeal concerned only the disqualification; the judgment does not alter the other parts of the sentence.
Dudek had pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm. He was sentenced to three years in prison, with the final two years suspended for five years. The judgment does not state the Circuit Court’s sentencing date.
The offence arose from a collision on 8 December 2016. At about 6.30pm, Dudek’s vehicle mounted a kerb and struck a heavy steel barrier outside a playground. The barrier then struck a pedestrian, identified in the judgment as Mr Miska, who was walking on the footpath. He suffered very serious injuries.
The case proceeded on agreed facts. Dudek did not remain at the scene or assist Miska, and contacted Gardaí the next day. In interview, he said a cat entered the road, he skidded while trying to avoid it, and he could not see the pedestrian until the last moment. He said he had panicked and was extremely sorry. Those statements were recounted in the judgment as his account.
The State argued that the sentencing judge had taken the relevant aggravating factors into account, including the driving, leaving the scene, failing to assist and delaying the report until the following day. Dudek argued that the 10-year disqualification was excessive and that there was no evidence of alcohol consumption. He also relied on having no previous convictions and on the hardship the ban would cause him and his family.
The Court of Appeal said public protection justified a significant disqualification beyond the statutory minimum of four years. It said the court should consider the nature of the driving and the person’s driving history, particularly any previous Road Traffic Act offences. In this case, there was no suggestion of prior offending to indicate how Dudek generally drove or might drive in future. The court concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently support a 10-year ban and substituted six years.