The High Court has ruled that a District Court judge cannot dismiss a speeding prosecution after finding the allegation proved, even if satisfied that the accused did not receive actual notice of the fixed-charge penalty notice (FCN).
Mr Justice Twomey delivered the judgment on 15 March 2019 in a consultative case stated by Judge McHugh of the District Court. The question was whether, notwithstanding section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, the District Court retained discretion to dismiss a prosecution under section 47 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 in those circumstances. The High Court’s answer was no.
The judgment said section 44(10) of the 2010 Act provides that it is not a defence for a person served with a summons accompanied by a section 44 notice to show that they were not served with an FCN in accordance with section 35. The judge’s lack of actual notice therefore did not change the District Court’s position once it had found the speeding allegation proved.
Mr Justice Twomey also referred to Kennedy v Gibbons, a 2014 High Court decision. In that case, the court had said that where penalty points are mandatory for certain traffic offences, the District Court cannot impose an informal sanction instead of a conviction, as that would circumvent the legislation.
The High Court accordingly answered the stated question and concluded that the District Court had no discretion to dismiss the prosecution in the circumstances described. The judgment does not record a decision on the defendant’s guilt or sentence in this case; it addresses the legal question referred by the District Court.