The High Court has ruled that a fixed-charge penalty notice under section 103 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 can be served by properly addressing and posting it. The prosecution does not have to prove that the recipient actually received the notice.
Justice Tara Burns gave the ruling on 30 July 2018 in a case stated by Ennis District Court. District Judge Patrick Durcan asked whether he was correct to treat service as requiring factual receipt as well as postal dispatch, despite the defendant not having registered his current address with the motor registration authorities.
The question arose from proceedings against Fraser Brown over alleged fixed-charge road traffic offences. At an Ennis District Court hearing on 16 June 2017, the prosecuting garda gave evidence that he had caused a notice to be served. Brown said he had moved from Ballingaddy, Ennistymon, to Ardnahea, Liscannor, and had not received the notice at the relevant time. He said he first learned of the intended prosecution when summonses were served. After that, he returned to his former address, where an envelope containing the notices was there.
The defence sought a direction on the basis that Brown had not received a notice within the relevant period. The prosecutor argued that the legislation did not require proof of receipt.
Justice Burns concluded that section 103 requires proof of posting, not receipt. She said section 25 of the Interpretation Act 2005 deems postal service to have taken place when a letter would ordinarily be delivered, but does not presume that it was received. She also referred to the requirement for vehicle owners to provide updated address details.
The ruling does not determine whether Brown committed the alleged offences or decide the underlying prosecution. Justice Burns said evidence of non-receipt remains relevant and must be considered by the District Court judge alongside the other evidence. Drawing on the High Court decision in Kinsella v DPP, she noted that non-receipt is not automatically fatal to a prosecution; depending on the circumstances, it may affect the penalty or support dismissal of a charge if a conviction would be entirely unfair.
The High Court therefore answered that the District Court judge was not correct to require proof of receipt. It left the significance of any evidence of non-receipt to be assessed in the underlying case.