The High Court has quashed three District Court convictions against Martin Kinsella after finding that the trial judge wrongly treated his alleged failure to receive fixed-charge penalty notices as an irrelevant administrative matter.
Mr Justice McDermott ruled on 20 July 2018 that Kinsella was entitled to give evidence and make submissions about whether the notices had been served, and about the consequences of not having had the chance to pay the lower penalties. The court ordered the case returned to the District Court for a hearing before a different judge. It did not decide whether the offences had been committed or whether Kinsella had in fact received the notices.
The convictions followed a stop on Con Colbert Road, Dublin, on 19 July 2015. Garda Damien Duffy said the red BMW Kinsella was driving had no NCT disc or tax disc displayed. Fixed-charge notices were issued to Kinsella’s address for those matters and for failing to display an insurance disc. After the notices went unpaid, summonses were brought.
At the District Court hearing on 10 June 2016, Kinsella’s solicitor said there had been ongoing problems with the post boxes at his client’s address and referred to a Dublin City Council letter acknowledging a complaint about a broken letterbox and stolen mail. That letter had been produced at an earlier hearing but was not put in evidence at this trial.
The judgment records that the District Court judge repeatedly said the notices were an administrative matter and asked whether Kinsella would give evidence that the vehicle had tax and an NCT. Kinsella later testified that he had not received the notices and would have paid them if he had. He also said he had bought the car about three hours before the stop and had not checked its tax or NCT status. The District Court convicted him: he was fined €150 on one summons, €300 with two years to pay on another, and the third offence was taken into consideration.
The High Court held that section 103(10) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 creates a presumption that a relevant notice was served and the charge was not paid, but allows the accused to challenge those matters with evidence. Non-receipt does not automatically prevent a trial or require dismissal. A trial judge may still convict if the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but must hear and consider the defence and may take it into account when deciding the penalty or whether conviction would be unfair.
Because the District Court judge did not properly consider the submissions and evidence about non-receipt, including at sentencing, the High Court found that the trial was not conducted in accordance with law. It granted certiorari and ordered a fresh hearing before a different District Court judge.