DPP v Opach

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Twomey
• Judgment Date: 25 October 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] IEHC 583
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 286 SS]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 25 October 2016

[2016] IEHC 583

THE HIGH COURT

CASE STATED

Twomey J.

[2016 No. 286 SS]

BETWEEN:

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

RESPONDENT

-AND-

BRONISAW OPACH

APPLICANT

Practice & Procedures – S. 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, as extended by the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961 – Case stated for consultation of High Court – Contravention of s. 56 (1) and s. 56 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 196 Validity of insurance policy

Facts: The present appeal came by way of a case stated by a judge of the District Court for the opinion of the High Court on the question as to whether the learned judge was correct in his finding that the appellant was guilty of an offence contrary to s. 56 (1) and s. 56 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 on the basis of holding an invalid certificate of insurance. The appellant argued that the fact that the user, who was a named driver on the policy of the appellant, was driving under a forged licence, could not invalidate the policy of insurance held by the appellant.

Mr. Justice Twomey answered the question posed by the learned District Court judge in the affirmative. The Court found that the relevant insurance policy schedule categorically required that only a valid licence holder could drive the motor vehicle failing which, no insurance claim would be entertained. The Court found that on the day of alleged offence, the user being the son of the appellant did not have a valid license, by reason of which the appellant, too, did not have an approved policy of insurance as required by s. 56 (1) of the Act of 1961.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Twomey delivered on the 25th day of October, 2016

Mr. Justice Twomey

Factual background

1 The following is an extract from the Case Stated signed by Judge John O'Neill on the 1st February, 2015:-

‘INTRODUCTION

2 1. This is an appeal by way of case stated by me, Judge Geoffrey Browne, a Judge of the District Court assigned to District No. 4, pursuant to Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, as extended by the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961, on a point of law for the opinion of the High Court.

2. On October 20, 2015 and January 5, 2016, Mr Bronisaw Opach (hereinafter “the appellant”) appeared before me at a sitting of Roscommon District Court, on foot of a summons in Case No. 2014/225933, in respect of the following offence:

‘On the 30-May-2014 at LISNACROGHY OR GALLOWSTOWN ROSCOMMON ROSCOMMON a public place, IN SAID DISTRICT COURT AREA OF ROSCOMMON, being the owner of a mechanically propelled vehicle registered number 99WH4865 which was used by one PAWEL OPACH such vehicle being one for neither a vehicle insurer not an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of said vehicle at that time and for which there was not then in force at that time an approved policy of insurance as required by Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended by Part VI of the Road Traffic Act, 1968, as amended.

Contrary to Section 56( 1) and (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as amended by Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 2006).’

3. A copy of the said summons is appended to this case stated atAppendix A.

REPRESENTATION

4. Garda Superintendent Nicholson, represented the respondent. Mr Sean Mahon, Solicitor in the firm of Mahon Sweeney, represented the appellant.

EVIDENCE PROVED OR ADMITTED BEFORE ME

5. On October 20, 2015, the prosecution of the appellant came before me at a sitting of Roscommon District Court. On that date, Mr Mahon indicated to me that the appellant had a valid policy of insurance in being at the time of the offence and that he had already advised the prosecutor of this fact in advance of the trial. It was indicated by Mr Mahon that the matter would be fully defended on the basis of the existence of this policy.

6. On that date, I briefly heard the facts of the case from Garda Barron. He stated that on May 30, 2014, he detected mechanically propelled vehicle 99WH4865 being used by Pawel Opach (hereinafter ‘the user’). Although the user was a named driver on the insurance policy of the appellant, the user was at the material time using a forged driving licence. Evidence was also given that the user was subsequently convicted in the District Court in relation to the use of the forged driving licence and for not having insurance.

7. On behalf of the respondent, Superintendent Nicholson submitted that because the user was driving with an invalid driving licence, this invalidated the policy of insurance held by the appellant and the appellant was guilty of the offence being of the owner of an uninsured vehicle.

8. Mr Mahon submitted there was a valid policy of insurance in being and that the fact that the user did not have a valid driving licence did not void the policy of insurance. Mr. Mahon also submitted that he had invited the respondent to call a witness from Liberty Insurance, who had issued the policy, however, I indicated to him that I did not believe it was necessary for the respondent to call such a witness.

9. On October 20, 2015, in view of the submissions made by Mr Mahon, I directed the respondent to produce the forged driving licence to the court and I adjourned the matter to Roscommon District Court on January 5, 2016 in order to allow for this.

10. On January 5, 2016, the respondent called Garda Barron as a witness. He stated that on May 30, 2014, he detected mechanically propelled vehicle 99WH4865 being used by Pawel Opach (‘the user’). A demand was made for the production of his driving licence and insurance. It was discovered that the user was did not hold a valid driving licence and was using a forged driving licence at the time, Therefore, this invalidated any policy of insurance held by the appellant then in force. Evidence was also given that the user was subsequently convicted in the District Court in relation to the use of a forged driving licence and for not having insurance. He was fined and not disqualified owing to the fact that he satisfied the court that there was a special reason for not doing so. Garda Barron produced to the court copies of the orders made in the District Court as against the user.

11. Garda Barron also gave evidence that the registered owner of 99WH4856 was the appellant. The garda produced a...