The Court of Appeal has dismissed John Stokes’s appeal against the refusal of judicial review of proceedings to enforce unpaid fines, leaving those proceedings to continue in the District Court. It held that Stokes can ask that court to terminate the enforcement process because of delay, and that it would be premature for the appeal court to decide the issue before the District Court completes its adjudication.
Stokes was convicted in the District Court on 3 February 2016 of road traffic offences committed in 2014 and 2015, including three offences of driving without insurance. He was fined a total of €1,700, payable by 1 August 2016. He did not pay. Later that month he began serving a prison sentence in an unrelated Circuit Court case.
A notice requiring him to attend court over the unpaid fines issued in January 2018. When he did not attend in April that year, a warrant was issued. He was still in custody. The warrant was executed by arrangement at Dún Laoghaire District Court on 25 February 2021, nearly three years later. The High Court found that Stokes had lived openly after his release and had not tried to conceal his whereabouts or evade service.
At a later District Court hearing, Stokes sought to have the enforcement proceedings struck out because of delay. The judge did not strike them out at that stage and began considering the statutory enforcement options, including community service. Stokes then sought judicial review. The High Court refused his application in November 2023, while accepting that the delay was inordinate and inadequately explained. It considered that the District Court should first decide what, if any, enforcement measure was appropriate and could protect his rights.
In the appeal, Stokes argued that the delay and the prospect of community service or imprisonment made continued enforcement unfair and oppressive. The respondents accepted that there had been delay, but argued that the District Court could address fairness and decide whether to end the proceedings. The Court of Appeal agreed. It distinguished the case from Finnegan because the District Court’s adjudicative process had not concluded and the eventual outcome could not be pre-judged.
The appeal court did not decide whether the enforcement proceedings are oppressive or what sanction, if any, should follow. Those questions remain for the District Court. The appeal was dismissed.