The High Court has dismissed a judicial review application by Russell Ighovojah challenging his convictions for driving without insurance and failing to produce an insurance certificate.
In a judgment delivered on 7 April 2016, Mr Justice Noonan ruled that the motor policy Ighovojah had taken out did not insure him within the meaning of section 56(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961. He said it therefore could not qualify as an approved policy for that provision.
Ighovojah had been disqualified from driving on 18 April 2013. Two months later, while disqualified, he took out a policy with Royal & Sun Alliance (RSA) covering 17 June to 30 November 2013. The policy stated that the driver must hold a licence or, if previously licensed, must not be disqualified. The judgment said Ighovojah did not disclose his disqualification to RSA.
On 23 June 2013, Gardaí stopped him while he was driving on a public road and demanded proof of insurance. He later produced the RSA certificate, which appeared to cover that period but contained the licensing condition. He was convicted on 14 May 2014 of using a vehicle without insurance and of failing to produce a certificate of insurance.
His argument was that compulsory insurance law is intended to ensure injured third parties can be compensated. Because the insurer could still be required by statute to compensate an injured person, he submitted that no offence had been committed, even if the insurer could later seek recovery from him for breaching the policy condition.
The judge rejected that argument. He distinguished the insurer’s statutory obligation to compensate an injured third party from the driver’s contractual right to be indemnified. Under the policy, Ighovojah had no right to indemnity while disqualified. The court held that the third-party compensation rules did not make him insured for the criminal provision.
The judgment relied on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in DPP v Donnelly and considered European insurance law and an English decision concerning a driver whose policy did not cover the activity for which he was prosecuted. The judge said those rules protected accident victims but did not determine drivers’ criminal responsibility under domestic law.
Having concluded that the convictions were correct, the court said it was unnecessary to decide a separate question about whether an erroneous interpretation by the District Judge would have been an error within jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the application. It did not quash the convictions.