The High Court has rejected a constitutional challenge to the fixed charge notice system after a driver argued that he should have been able to contest a speeding allegation through an out-of-court appeal process.
In a judgment delivered on 24 February 2022, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter refused the relief sought by Gary Cully, including an order to quash the three penalty points and six-month driving disqualification recorded against him, and a declaration that section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 was unconstitutional.
The case arose from a September 2020 stop on the N18 near Bunratty, County Clare. Garda Cyril Page’s affidavit said a handheld laser device recorded Cully travelling at 143km/h in a 100km/h zone. The judgment records that Cully did not dispute his speed at the roadside. He paid the €80 fixed charge within 28 days, and three penalty points were added to his licence. As a novice driver already carrying five points, he was notified of a six-month disqualification starting on 9 November 2020.
Cully argued that section 37 was unfair because it did not provide a way to challenge the allegation outside court without risking the higher penalties that could follow a conviction. He also raised equality and livelihood arguments. The State respondents opposed the case on procedural grounds and on its merits.
Justice Ferriter first rejected the respondents’ objections that Cully lacked standing, had applied too late or had used the wrong procedure. He found that the application was made within three months of the disqualification notice, or that there was sufficient reason to extend time if needed. He also held that the facts showed the absence of the appeal process was relevant to Cully’s own interests.
On the substance, the judge found that a motorist who wants to contest a speeding charge can do so in court after being summoned, with the presumption of innocence and the ordinary trial protections. The fixed charge option, he said, avoids prosecution and criminal conviction; the Constitution did not entitle Cully to a separate out-of-court adjudication system.
The judge also rejected the equality claim, finding Cully was treated like other motorists who did not qualify for the Garda cancellation scheme. On livelihood, he found no claim that the disqualification prevented Cully from working altogether; the Constitution did not guarantee a right to earn a living as a boxer.
The court dismissed the constitutional challenge and refused all relief. The judgment does not quash the penalty points or disqualification.