Stokes v O'Donnell

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr. Justice Laffoy
Judgment Date01 January 1999
Neutral Citation1996 WJSC-HC 2483
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[1994 No. 294 J.R.],No. 294 J.R./1994
Date01 January 1999
STOKES v. O'DONNELL

BETWEEN

MICHAEL STOKES
APPLICANT

AND

DISTRICT JUDGE AIDAN O'DONNELL, THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
RESPONDENTS

1996 WJSC-HC 2483

No. 294 J.R./1994

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

EVIDENCE

Quantum

Presumption - Activation - Testimony - Sufficiency - Road traffic offence - Failure to produce insurance certificate on demand - Statutory presumption in that event that vehicle used in breach of enactment - Submission that evidence insufficient to activate presumption - Procedure by judicial review inappropriate where challenge to conviction is based on alleged lack of evidence - (1994/294 JR - Laffoy J. - 29/3/96)- [1999] 3 IR 218 - [1996] 2 ILRM 538

|Stokes v. O'Donnell|

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Remedy

Scope - Offence - Conviction - Evidence - Sufficiency - Road traffic offence - Failure to produce insurance certificate on demand - Statutory presumption in that event that vehicle used in breach of enactment - Submission that evidence insufficient to activate presumption - Procedure by judicial review inappropriate where challenge to conviction is based on alleged lack of evidence - Road Traffic Act, 1961 (No. 24), s. 56 - (1994/294 JR - Laffoy J. - 29/3/96)- [1999] 3 IR 218 - [1996] 2 ILRM 538

|Stokes v. O'Donnell|

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S56

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 PART VI

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1968 PART VI

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S56(4)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S69

LENNON V CLIFFORD 1992 1 IR 382

HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND 3ED V11 PARA 119

R V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF NORTH WALES POLICE EX PARTE EVANS 1982 1 WLR 1155

ROCHE V MARTIN 1993 ILRM 651

COPYRIGHT ACT 1963 S27

TRULOC LTD V MCMENAMIN 1994 1 ILRM 151

KEEGAN, STATE V STARDUST VICTIMS COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1986 IR 642

O'KEEFFE V BORD PLEANALA 1992 ILRM 237

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S56

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S66

HOLLAND, STATE V KENNEDY 1977 IR 193

CHILDREN ACT 1908 S102(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(3)

DPP V O'DONOGHUE 1991 1 IR 448

MCNALLY V MARTIN 1995 1 ILRM 350

KEENEY, STATE V O'MALLEY 1986 ILRM 31

CHILDREN ACT 1908 PART V

1

Judgment of delivered on the 29th day of March, 1996. Mr. Justice Laffoy

2

On 17th May, 1994 the Applicant was convicted by the first named Respondent at the sitting of the District Court held at Longford of an offence under Section 56 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961(the Act of 1961), as amended, in that on 12th January, 1994 at Glack, Dublin Road, Longford, a public place, he had used a mechanically propelled vehicle for which neither a vehicle insurer nor an exempt person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him at that time and for which there was not in force at that time an approved policy of insurance as required by Part VI of the Act of 1961, as amended by Part VI of the Road Traffic Act, 1968. By Order of this Court made by O'Hanlon J. on 10th October, 1994, the Applicant was given leave to apply for an Order of Certiorari by way of application for Judicial Review in respect of the said conviction on various grounds, only one of which was pursued at the hearing of the Applicant's application.

3

Section 56(4) of the Act of 1961, provides as follows:-

"Where, in a prosecution for an offence under this section, it is shown that, a demand having been made under Section 69 of this Act, —"

(a) the person on whom the demand was made refused or failed to produce a certificate of insurance ... then and there, or

(b) ...

4

it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that the vehicle was being used in contravention of this section."

5

The sole ground on which the Applicant sought an Order of Certiorari was that it was contended that there was a fundamental gap in the evidence of the prosecution at the hearing before the first named Respondent and there was no evidence upon which the presumption available under Section 56(4) could be applied and no evidence upon which the conviction could be grounded.

6

In his grounding affidavit sworn on the 8th July, 1994 the Applicant gave the following account of the proceedings before the first named Respondent on 17th May, 1994:

7

(a) Messrs. Claffey, Gannon & Co., Solicitors, Castlerea, Co. Roscommon acted in the Applicant's defence and indicated to the first named Respondent that the case was being fully defended.

8

(b) The prosecuting Garda, Garda Mary Mangan, testified that on 12th January, 1994 at Glack, Dublin Road, Longford, she stopped motor vehicle 92 G 3408 and demanded from the driver production of a certificate of insurance or exemption. She then gave evidence to the effect that a certificate had been produced but enquiry from a company indicated ...

9

(c) At that stage objection was taken on behalf of the defence to any evidence being given by Garda Mangan which would be hearsay. Garda Mangan indicated that she had a witness who could give evidence in relation to this matter.

10

(d) A Mr. Patrick Dixon was called by the prosecution and he testified that Celtic International Insurance Company had no insurance in the name of the Applicant at certain addresses referred to and that policy number WR/337968642 was not a policy of the Celtic International Insurance Company. Mr. Dixon was cross-examined by the Applicant's Solicitor and the thrust of the cross-examination was to establish that Mr. Dixon was not testifying from his own actual knowledge.

11

(e) Following the closing of the prosecution case the Applicant's Solicitor applied for a direction on the ground, inter alia, that the presumption available under Section 56(4) had ceased. The application was refused.

12

(f) The Applicant was then called and proceeded to testify that his mother-in-law lived at Newcastle West, County Limerick, and that while the Applicant was visiting her there a gentlemen called and stated that he was selling insurance. The first named Respondent intervened to point out that he had previously been assigned to the District Court area which included Newcastle West and had come across on a daily basis, cases involving forged insurance certificates. There followed exchanges between the Applicant's Solicitor and the first named Respondent and after the exchanges the Applicant was withdrawn from the witness box by his Solicitor.

13

a (G) The first named Respondent then convicted the Applicant and imposed a fine of £100.

14

The account of the proceedings before the first named Respondent given by Garda Mary Mangan in her affidavit sworn on 6th February, 1995, is substantially consistent with the account contained in the Applicant's affidavit, which I have just outlined, and, insofar as there are inconsistencies, they are merely nuances. Garda Mangan averred that she gave evidence of having stopped the vehicle of which the Applicant was the driver and demanded of him production of a certificate of insurance or exemption and she continued as follows:-

"I then gave evidence that a certificate was produced to me but that inquiry from the insurance company had indicated a certain matter. At this juncture objection was taken on behalf of the Solicitor acting on behalf of the Applicant to any evidence I might give which would be hearsay. I indicated that in fact a witness was in Court who could give evidence in relation to the matter. Neither at that time, nor at any stage, did I inform the Court that I was of the view that a certificate of insurance, within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, had been produced to me. At all material times it was evident to the first named Respondent and indeed to the Solicitor for the Applicant herein, that I did not accept that I had been presented with a valid certificate. This would have been clear, both from the general tenor of my evidence and in particular from the fact that although I said a certificate had been produced, I qualified this by indicating that an inquiry had been made from the insurance company in question which had indicated certain matters to me."

15

Appropos of the evidence given by Mr. Dixon, Garda Mangan averred that Mr. Dixon had stated —

"that the policy number on the certificate,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Ryanair Ltd v Flynn
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 March 2000
    ... 1994 1 ILRM 151 RYAN V COMPENSATION TRIBUNAL 1997 1 ILRM 194 ACT SHIPPING LTD V MIN FOR MARINE 1995 3 IR 406 STOKES V O'DONNELL 1996 2 ILRM 538 ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTUREHOUSES LTD V WEDNESBURY CORP 1948 1 KB 223 CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THE NORTH WALES POLICE V EVANS 1982 1 WLR 1155 HEN......
  • McCarron v Kearney
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 4 July 2008
    ...533, Mishoa v Minister for Justice [1996] 1 IR 189, Lennon v District Judge Clifford [1992] 1 IR 382, Stokes v District Judge O'Donnell [1999] 3 IR 218, O'Reilly v Mackman [1983] 2 AC 237, Goodison v Sheehan [2008] IEHC 127 (Unrep, Peart J, 2/5/2008), O'Leary v Maher [2008] IEHC 113 (Unrep,......
  • Ayadi v DPP
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 20 January 2017
    ...382, Roche v. District Judge Martin [1993] ILRM 651, Truloc v. District Judge McMenamin [1994] 1 I.L.R.M. 151 and Stokes v. O'Donnell [1996] 2 I.L.R.M. 538, to remind the Court that it does not have the function of reviewing the merits of the respondent's decision or providing some kind of......
  • Sweeney v District Judge Fahy
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 31 July 2014
    ...with the decision in Stokes v. District Judge Aidan O”Donnell, The Director of Public Prosecutions, Ireland and the Attorney General [1999] 3 I.R. 218 (‘ Stokes’) such could not form the basis for obtaining judicial review and therefore should be discounted. 11 The learned judge went on to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT