The Court of Appeal retained a four-year driving disqualification for a taxi driver convicted of careless driving causing serious bodily harm, but ruled that he would not have to produce a competency or fitness certificate to the licensing authority when the ban ends.
The court quashed the original sentence after finding that the sentencing judge had proceeded without giving defence counsel an opportunity to make submissions. It then re-sentenced the appellant to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended in full on the same terms as before, and imposed the four-year disqualification again.
The appeal concerned the disqualification order arising from an incident on South Mall in Cork City at about 3am on 20 September 2015. The appellant’s taxi struck Michelle Austin, who was standing in the road and appeared to be trying to flag down a taxi. She suffered serious injuries, was placed in a coma and underwent lifesaving brain surgery. The judgment said her recovery had been slow but steady, with ongoing difficulties in her left hand and uncertainty about her prognosis.
The appellant pleaded guilty in Cork Circuit Criminal Court on 18 April 2016. At sentence on 12 May 2016, he received 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended in full, and a four-year driving disqualification. He appealed only the disqualification, arguing that special reasons could justify no ban or a shorter one. His counsel said she had been unable to make that argument because the trial judge delivered judgment immediately after the evidence.
The Court of Appeal said the statutory power to decline a disqualification or impose a shorter period for special reasons applied to a summary careless-driving conviction, not a conviction tried on indictment. It therefore had to impose the four-year ban. The court did, however, find that special reasons allowed it to dispense with the separate requirement for a competency or fitness certificate after the disqualification period.
Those reasons included the unusual circumstances of the accident, the absence of aggravating features such as speed, intoxication, fatigue or mobile-phone use, the appellant’s driving experience and lack of previous driving convictions, his remorse and cooperation, and the compensation arrangements described to the court. The judgment also said there was nothing to indicate a general lack of driving competence.
The court stated that the sentencing judge’s failure to hear submissions was an error in principle. Its order changed the certificate requirement; it did not shorten the four-year disqualification.