The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by a motorcycle owner convicted of allowing his son to ride without an approved insurance policy covering that use.
The case arose after the son, Pawel Opach, was stopped on 30 May 2014 while riding his father’s motorcycle. He produced a certificate showing he was a named driver on a valid policy, but he did not hold a valid licence and was using a forged one. He was separately convicted of offences involving the forged licence and driving without insurance.
The policy schedule said all riders had to hold a valid licence and warned that failure “could result in a claim being declined and your policy cancelled”. The father was prosecuted as the vehicle’s owner under section 56 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The District Court convicted him and imposed a €500 fine and a two-year driving disqualification.
On a case stated, the High Court answered that the District Court had been correct to convict because the owner did not have an approved policy of insurance as required by the Act. The owner appealed that legal answer. He argued that the policy remained in force unless the insurer chose to avoid it, and that the prosecution had not proved the absence of cover. The prosecution relied on the licence condition and the statutory presumption that can apply when a driver fails to produce the required insurance certificate after a Garda demand.
The Court of Appeal accepted that the policy was voidable, rather than automatically void, at the insurer’s option. But it held that the statutory requirement was for an approved policy covering the particular vehicle, driver and use, under which the insurer was bound to indemnify. If a certificate made indemnity contingent on compliance with a condition, and there was prima facie evidence of breach, a Garda was not required to treat it as proof of an approved policy for that particular use.
The court found that the evidence about the Garda demand and the son’s response was sufficient for the District Court to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he had not produced a certificate for an approved policy covering the ride. It also held that the section 56(4) presumption arose and had not been rebutted by evidence from the owner.
The court did not decide the owner’s separate argument about whether he knew, or ought to have known, that his son was using a forged licence. It said that issue had not been raised in the District Court or in the case stated. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the conviction and sentence in place.