High Court: DPP granted application to remit dangerous driving proceedings to District Court

About this case:

• Judgment:
  External link

Granting the reliefs sought by the DPP, Mr Justice Max Barrett was satisfied that the unreported Supreme Court judgment in DPP v Ó’Buachalla was authority for a finding that when the man had pleaded not-guilty, the District Court had no jurisdiction to try the matter summarily.

Background

It was alleged that in February 2015, Mr Martin Feehan was driving a van which collided with a truck, causing a five-vehicle accident. As a result of the accident, there were serious injuries including brain injury suffered by a young woman.

Following a Garda investigation, a Chief Superintendent purported to direct that Mr Feehan be charged on three counts of dangerous driving serious harm – notably without a file being submitted to the DPP.

In the District Court in March 2016, Mr Feehan was convicted and fined €500, and disqualified from driving for 2 years.

Justice Barrett noted that the DPP had not consented to the offences being tried summarily.

Mr Feehan lodged appeal, and in July 2016 file was forwarded to the DPP. Initially it was understood that Mr Feehan had been convicted of the summary-only offence of dangerous driving simpliciter under s.53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as inserted by the s.4 of the Road Traffic (No 2) Act 2011.

It was not until October 2016 that it came to the DPP’s attention that the District Court had purported to convict Mr Feehan of the offence of dangerous driving causing serious harm, following ‘not guilty’ pleas.

Prosecuted summarily in error

The DPP argued that, even if it was legal, summary trial was not appropriate given the seriousness of the accident, and sought to prosecute Mr Feehan on indictment on a single charge of dangerous driving causing serious harm.

As such, in the present application to the High Court, the substantive reliefs sought by the DPP were, inter alia, an order of certiorari quashing the orders of the District Court, and an order remitting the charges to be dealt with in accordance with law.

DPP v Ó’Buachalla

Justice Barrett held that DPP v Ó’Buachalla (Unreported, 10th December, 1999) provided “a complete answer as to the applicable law”.

DPP v Ó’Buachalla involved a defendant charged with dangerous driving causing serious harm, prosecuted summarily in error for an indictable offence. The defendant contested, but was convicted without anyone noticing that the offence was only triable on indictment. In Ó’Buachalla, the DPP sought to quash the decision by certiorari – which was refused in the High Court but overturned on appeal. In an ex tempore judgment, the Supreme Court held, inter alia, that:

Adopting Ó’Buachalla, Justice Barrett explained that the Supreme Court decision had “surprisingly… not been widely reported” and that “counsel was understandably unaware as a consequence”. (Notably, the Ex Tempore judgment of Chief Justice Keane in Ó’Buachalla is appended to the present judgment).

Justice Barrett explained that the within application was out-of-time unless an extension of time was to be granted by the Court under Order 84, Rule 21 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.

In granting the extension sought by the DPP, Justice Barrett said there was good and sufficient reason for delay on the part of the DPP in bringing the application, that the circumstances were outside of the DPP’s control, that they could not have reasonably been anticipated; and was satisfied that the public interest in prosecuting the offence on indictment outweighed any alleged prejudice that would be suffered by Mr Feehan.

Granting the DPP’s application, Justice Barrett held that the District Court had no jurisdiction to try Mr Feehan; and that following Ó’Buachalla, it was appropriate to make an order quashing Mr Feehan’s conviction and to remit the within proceedings for further trial.