Greaney v Scully

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: Henchy
• Judgment Date: 30 July 1981
• Neutral Citation: 1981 WJSC-SC 1660
• Date: 30 July 1981

1981 WJSC-SC 1660

SUPREME COURT

Henchy J.

Griffin J.

Kenny J.

(257/1980)

Greaney v. Scully

GARDA T.N. GREANEY

v.

RICHARD SCULLY

1 Henchy J. delivered the 30th July 1981 [New . Diss]

2 The defendant was convicted in the District Court of an offence contrary to s. 56 of the Road c Traffic Act, 1961. Put colloquially, this offence was that of driving a lorry on the public road when he was not covered by insurance. S. 56(l)(a) of the 196l Act required that, in his circumstances, he should have had "an approved policy of insurance whereby the user or some other person who would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user, is insured against all sums without limit (save as is hereinafter provided) which the user or his personal representative or such other person or his personal representative shall become liable to pay to any person (exclusive of the excepted persons) by way of damages or costs on account of injury to person or property caused by the negligent use of the vehicle at that time by the user".

3 Unfortunately, the defendant's user of the vehicle fell outside the requirements of that provision. There was in fact a policy of insurance in force in respect of the vehicle, but the person insured under it was the defendants father, and he was the only person whose driving was covered by the policy. Consequently, if the defendant, by negligent driving on the occasion in question, had caused injury to another road user, there would have been no insurance to meet the damages that would become payable to the injured person. The defendant, therefore, as user of the vehicle, on the face of things, committed an offence contrary to s. 56, as amended by Fart VI of the Road Traffic Act, 1968.

4 So much is common case. It was not, I think, contended on behalf of the defendant that he was not, at least prima facie, in breach of the requirements of s. 56. Accordingly the District Justice had no option but to convict him of the offence charged. He was fined £100, disqualified from holding a driving licence for twelve months, and an order was made that particulars of the conviction and disqualification be endorsed on his driving licence.

5 The defendant appealed to the Circuit Court against that order. The appeal came before Judge Sheridan, sitting at Waterford. On the hearing of the appeal, the defendant's contravention of s. 56, to the extent I have indicated, was clearly established, but the point was taken (apparently by the Circuit Court Judge himself) that the policy of insurance in question was an approved policy of insurance for the purpose of s. 56, notwithstanding the fact that it provided no insurance cover for any negligent driving by the defendant. Insofar as I understand the basis for this point, it would seem to be that, while the policy was issued in compliance with the Road Traffic (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations, 1962 (i.e. G.I. No. l4 of 1965, which I shall call "the Regulations"), the restriction of cover allowed by the Regulations exceeded the powers delegated to the Minister to make such Regulations. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Circuit Judge the limitation of cover to the defendant's father was permitted by Regulations which he (the Judge) considered to be ultra vires, so that the defendant's driving should be held to have been covered by the policy. He would therefore have allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint; but before doing so, he stated this case, at the request of the complainant, so that the opinion of this Court might be got as to whether the Regulations are ultra vires to the extent that they provide for a policy which limits cover by specifying by name the persons to be covered.

6 A question arose in the course of the argument as to whether the Circuit Court Judge had jurisdiction to decide, when hearing an appeal from the District Court in a criminal case, whether a particular piece of delegated legislation is ultra vires or not, and therefore whether he had jurisdiction under s. 16 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1947, to state a case on the point. It would appear that the decision of this Court in Listowel Urban District Council v, McDonagh 1968 I.E. 312 held that the necessary jurisdiction was not wanting. In the Listowel case, the defendant had appealed to the Circuit Court against a conviction in the District Court for having contravened an order made by the...