The High Court has dismissed Bryan Kirby’s judicial review challenge to his District Court conviction for failing to display an insurance disc, finding that the prosecution was properly allowed to produce the relevant regulations after the defence sought a direction for acquittal.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin ruled on 29 January 2021 that the District Court acted within its jurisdiction and afforded Mr Kirby a fair hearing. The application sought to quash the conviction and a declaration concerning how regulations must be proved in prosecutions for regulatory offences. The High Court refused both forms of relief. It stressed that judicial review was not an appeal or a rehearing of the evidence.
The charge arose from an alleged offence on South Circular Road, Dublin 8, on 12 July 2016. At a District Court hearing in November 2017, Garda David Reynolds gave evidence that Mr Kirby had driven without an insurance disc displayed. The defence sought a direction for acquittal, arguing that the regulations creating the offence had not been proved. A sergeant had handed a booklet of regulations into court that morning.
After written submissions from both sides, the District Court judge ruled on 30 May 2018 that the regulations had been produced in November. She also referred to her discretion to allow the prosecution to reopen its case to prove them, if necessary. The prosecution had expressly requested that option in its written submissions. Garda Reynolds then gave evidence again and produced individual copies of the relevant regulations. The High Court found that this additional evidence concerned formal proof, not the merits of the charge.
Mr Kirby’s solicitor was offered the opportunity to question Garda Reynolds. Mr Kirby then gave evidence, was cross-examined and made submissions through his solicitor. He said he had the insurance disc with him and had put it on the dashboard after being stopped. Garda Reynolds’s evidence was that the disc was not displayed when he first saw Mr Kirby driving.
The District Court judge accepted Garda Reynolds’s evidence on that point and convicted Mr Kirby, imposing a €200 fine with three months to pay. The High Court noted that the conviction followed the renewed production of the regulations and Mr Kirby’s participation in the hearing.
Mr Kirby argued that the prosecution case had not properly been reopened and that producing regulations at the start of a court sitting was impermissible. The High Court rejected those arguments. It held that the sergeant’s earlier production of the booklet was sufficient, and that, in any event, the District Court had discretion to reopen the case and did so on 30 May 2018. The court also rejected a claim that the regulations had been handed in while Mr Kirby and his solicitor were absent, finding that this was not a ground on which leave for judicial review had been granted.
The High Court said the appropriate route to challenge dissatisfaction with the District Court’s decision was an appeal to the Circuit Court, which Mr Kirby had not taken. It directed the parties to correspond about the final order and costs; if they could not agree, written submissions were to be filed within 21 days.