The High Court ruled that a fixed charge notice for speeding was valid despite errors in its form, and said the District Court should not have dismissed the summons against Keith O’Sullivan.
Mr Justice Charleton delivered the judgment on 1 December 2008 after a District Court judge in Clane referred questions about the notice. The case concerned a charge that O’Sullivan exceeded a 50 km/h speed limit on Quinn Road in Ennis on 3 March 2005. The judgment records that he had not paid the fixed charge and was summoned to Ennis District Court.
The defence solicitor argued that 33 errors in the notice meant O’Sullivan was not legally obliged to pay the fixed charge and that the charge should be dismissed. The District Court judge considered most of the objections “trivial and unsustainable”, but accepted four concerns: the Garda’s signature was not in a designated box, there was no heading stating the fixed charge amount, the notice did not expressly describe the 50% increase after 28 days, and it did not say that the notice should accompany payment.
The High Court described the notice’s contents. It named the Garda and included an apparently indecipherable signature, although not in a special box. It stated that €80 could be paid within 28 days and €120 during the following 28 days. It also required a declaration with the payer’s driving licence number, signature, name, address and the relevant date.
The court held that the applicable regulations allowed a notice in the prescribed form “or a form substantially to the like effect”. Mr Justice Charleton said that minor errors do not invalidate a notice unless they mislead the accused about the substance of the charge. He found no substantial misleading in this case.
The High Court answered the District Court judge’s questions by ruling that the notice complied in substance with the 2003 regulations and was valid. It also stated that an error in a notice, evidence certificate or summons does not make it invalid without evidence that the defendant was misled into thinking its substance was different. The court’s stated conclusion was that the summons should not have been dismissed; the judgment does not record a conviction or determine the underlying speeding charge.