The High Court quashed convictions made against Eddie Kershaw on 31 October 2013 after finding that the District Judge proceeded on guilty pleas which Kershaw was no longer making at that hearing. It refused his application to quash 13 seatbelt convictions from 16 January 2014, finding that the hearing had followed fair procedures.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Meenan on 20 December 2017, concerned Kershaw’s application for judicial review of orders made by two District Judges. Kershaw had been granted leave in February 2014 to seek certiorari, an order quashing those decisions.
At the October 2013 hearing, the prosecution solicitor said guilty pleas had been entered on an earlier date and marked on the summonses. The transcript recorded Kershaw answering “no” when asked if he was pleading guilty. Later, when the solicitor referred to another guilty plea, Kershaw said he had not pleaded guilty.
Justice Meenan concluded that, although Kershaw may have pleaded guilty earlier, he was no longer doing so at the October hearing. The judge did not appear to recognise this and convicted him on the basis of guilty pleas. The High Court found this amounted to a want of fair procedure and quashed the orders of 31 October 2013.
The prosecution had said it could not evidentially support an objection to the relief sought in relation to two of the convictions made that day. The judgment does not identify those two convictions separately.
Kershaw also challenged the January 2014 convictions, arguing that the District Judge should not have proceeded while his appeal over the seatbelt legislation was pending, and raising complaints about the hearing, evidence and warning on fixed charge notices. The High Court found the judge knew of the pending appeal and was entitled to proceed after the Supreme Court had refused a stay. It found the transcript did not support the claim of excessive intervention and that Kershaw had been allowed to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.
The court also found that an error in describing a previous conviction as one for having no insurance was corrected during the sentencing hearing, causing no injustice. It concluded that the fixed penalty notice contained the required warning. The application to quash the 16 January 2014 orders was refused. Those orders, made in Court 17 of the Criminal Courts of Justice in Dublin, therefore remained in place.