The High Court has ruled that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is not a party to proceedings under the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Act 2014 and is not required to attend hearings to enforce an unpaid fine.
Mr Justice Robert Eagar gave the ruling on 10 May 2019 in response to five questions referred by a District Court judge in a consultative case stated. The case concerned Claudia Fogarty, who had been fined €600 for driving without insurance in November 2016. The fine remained unpaid, and a notice required her to attend Cork District Court under section 7(4) of the 2014 Act and provide information about her financial circumstances.
Fogarty’s solicitor attended the enforcement hearing. The DPP did not. Her solicitor applied to have the matter dismissed for want of prosecution, arguing that the prosecutor’s absence meant the proceedings should not continue. The District Court judge referred questions to the High Court before determining that application.
Mr Justice Eagar held that section 7 proceedings are judicial in nature, but said the prosecution’s role ends when the court records a conviction and imposes a fine. The enforcement process is for the court, supported by the Courts Service, to apply its own order. Neither the DPP nor another prosecutor is a party to that process or required to attend.
The court also ruled that Order 23, rule 5 of the District Court Rules, which allows a complaint to be struck out, dismissed without prejudice or adjourned when the prosecutor does not attend, does not apply to fine enforcement proceedings. It concerns the hearing of the original complaint, the judgment said. There was no basis to strike out the enforcement proceedings because the prosecutor was absent.
If the fined person fails to attend without reasonable excuse, section 7(7) provides for the court to issue an arrest warrant or arrange a further notice with a new attendance date. The High Court said the case stated did not provide enough information to decide whether the proceedings could be covered by a criminal legal aid certificate. It said a legal aid certificate does not continue after the complaint results in a conviction and a fine that is not paid.
The judgment answered the legal questions referred by the District Court. It did not determine the underlying enforcement matter or the application to dismiss it.