The High Court ruled that two drivers disqualified for two years remained entitled to apply to the District Court for restoration of their driving licences, despite the repeal of the statutory provision that had allowed such applications.
In a judgment delivered on 1 April 2008, Ms Justice Dunne answered legal questions referred by a District Court judge in two consultative cases. The High Court determined the effect of the Road Traffic Act 2006, which replaced section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 from 5 March 2007. The new provision allowed applications only from people disqualified for more than two years.
Barry O’Sullivan had been convicted of an offence under section 49(4) of the 1961 Act. His conviction and penalty were affirmed on appeal, and he received a two-year driving disqualification from 16 June 2006. At a December 2007 hearing, the District Court judge found that O’Sullivan had paid his fine, surrendered his licence for endorsement and not driven while disqualified. The judge also accepted evidence of hardship connected with his employment and family circumstances, and considered the application meritorious, but referred the legal issue to the High Court.
Andrew Creighton had received a two-year disqualification effective from 13 December 2006, after his conviction was affirmed by the Circuit Court. The District Court judge found that he had paid his fine and surrendered his licence. Creighton said he needed to drive for his letting-agent business; the judge was satisfied that restoration should be ordered, subject to the legal question.
The respondent argued that the right to apply had not accrued before the old provision was repealed because neither driver had completed the nine-month period required before an application could be made. Justice Dunne held that the drivers acquired the right when convicted and disqualified, although it accrued for use after nine months. She also found that repeal did not undo the previous operation of the old provision or take away that entitlement under section 27 of the Interpretation Act 2005.
The court answered “No” to the question in O’Sullivan’s case: the 2006 Act had not deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to consider an application concerning a pre-5 March 2007 disqualification. In Creighton’s case, it answered “Yes” to question (a) and question (c), confirming that he could rely on section 27 and that repeal had not affected the disqualification so as to prevent an application. The judge declined to answer question (b), saying it was not correctly framed and that her view was clear from the judgment.
The High Court determined eligibility to apply. It did not itself restore either driving licence; the applications remained for the District Court to consider.