The High Court has remitted a careless-driving case to the District Court for a further hearing, ruling that the complaint supporting the summons was sufficient in law. It did not decide whether the accused was guilty.
The case arose from a road traffic accident on 1 September 2015. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to prosecute Fergal Greene for allegedly driving without due care and attention at Thomastown Demesne, Athlone, in County Roscommon. The alleged offence was under section 52(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended.
A Garda who investigated the accident applied for a summons in open court in January 2016. The District Judge signed it. After the issue of where it had been signed was raised, the judge heard evidence from the Garda and was satisfied that the application had been made in court.
The accused’s solicitor later argued that the complaint was invalid because the judge had not been given enough information about the alleged offence. In July 2016, the District Judge concluded that the summons had been issued without jurisdiction, struck out the case and stated questions of law for the High Court.
The prosecution argued that the draft summons itself contained a sufficient statement of the alleged offence. The accused’s counsel also submitted that it did not state that Greene was a serving Garda, a status that attracted additional procedural protections, including that a judge sign the summons.
Mr Justice Hunt ruled that the summons set out the alleged conduct, the date and place, the vehicle registration and the statutory offence. Those details were enough to amount to a complaint; a narrative of evidence supporting the allegation was not required at the summons stage. The judge also said the complaint had been made publicly and that a sufficient written complaint could speak for itself without oral elaboration.
The High Court answered the first question in the case stated in the negative: the District Judge had not acted without jurisdiction when issuing the summons. It said there was no need to answer the second question and answered the third, on whether striking out was correct, in the negative. The matter was remitted to the District Court for the complaint to be heard in the ordinary way.