The High Court has overturned the acquittal of a woman charged with driving an unlicensed vehicle for reward, ruling that the prosecution did not have to show a fare had been agreed in advance or paid at the end of the journey.
Mr Justice Barr delivered judgment electronically on 21 April 2020 in an appeal by the National Transport Authority by way of case stated. The charge concerned a journey on 4 January 2018 from the Talk of the Town pub to the Broadhaven Bay Hotel in Belmullet, Co Mayo. The respondent’s identity is stated in the judgment; this draft preserves the source’s naming and does not infer any additional identity details.
At the close of the prosecution case in the District Court, Judge Alan Mitchell directed that the respondent had no case to answer and dismissed the prosecution. He found there had been no prior agreement on the fare and no payment, and ruled that the prosecution had not shown carriage for reward.
The High Court said the District Court judge applied the wrong legal test. It held that the court could consider all the surrounding circumstances when deciding whether the driving was for hire or reward, rather than requiring either an agreed fare beforehand or payment afterwards. The High Court also said that, at the halfway stage of the trial, the question was whether the prosecution evidence, taken at its highest, could support a conviction if properly considered by a jury.
The judgment recounted evidence that the respondent had confirmed by phone that she was a taxi, arranged to collect two compliance officers, drove them to the hotel, and then quoted a €20 fare. It also cited her statement under caution that the vehicle had never been licensed as a small public service vehicle, that she had charged €20 for the journey, and that she was finished doing “that type of work”. These were matters the High Court considered as evidence; the appeal did not determine guilt after a full trial.
The court answered “No” to both questions referred by the District Court judge, allowed the appeal and overturned the acquittal. It did not order a retrial in the judgment. The Authority said it was seeking legal clarity rather than a retrial, so the High Court invited both parties to make electronic submissions within 21 days on the exact terms of the order.