The High Court quashed a dangerous-driving conviction after finding that the applicant had not received advance notice of the District Court hearing at which he was convicted and sentenced to five months in prison.
In a judgment delivered on 10 March 2014, Mr Justice Hogan said the applicant had not, in fact, received notification of the proceedings, or that receipt could not satisfactorily be established. The court also held that, even if he had received proper notice, the District Judge should not have imposed a substantial prison sentence in his absence.
The case arose from an attempted burglary reported in Ballinamore, Co Leitrim, on 8 February 2012. Gardaí later identified the applicant as the driver of a silver Golf that drove towards a patrol car, which swerved; the patrol car was damaged. The car was later found in Drumlish, but its occupants ran into fields and were not located. A technical examination found no new evidence, and the car had false registration plates and was registered under a false name and address.
Three summonses were hand-delivered to an address in Tallaght in November 2012. The applicant said he had never lived there and had not received them. Gardaí later sent letters to eight addresses they knew of, but the applicant said he was not living at those addresses and received none of the notices. He acknowledged he had been technically using one Tallaght address while travelling. He was not served at his Rathangan, Co Kildare, address.
The District Court heard the case on 19 February 2013 in the applicant’s absence. District Judge Kevin Kilrane convicted him of dangerous driving, sentenced him to five months’ imprisonment and disqualified him from driving for four years. He was arrested at home in August 2013 and taken to prison. The following day, the High Court ordered his release during an inquiry into the legality of his detention, after the prison governor indicated he was not standing over the detention.
Justice Hogan said proper and timely notice of criminal proceedings is a constitutional requirement. He relied on an earlier High Court decision holding that where a judge intends to impose a significant custodial sentence, fair procedures require an effort to establish why the accused is absent or to secure the accused’s attendance before sentencing.
The respondents argued that the applicant could instead have applied to the District Court to set aside the proceedings under section 22(6) of the Courts Act 1991. The judge said that remedy did not prevent the High Court granting relief in this case, given the significant sentence, the continuing risk of imprisonment and the breach of the applicant’s constitutional right to due notice.
The order quashed the conviction. The judgment did not determine the underlying dangerous-driving allegation.