A District Court judge yesterday ruled that Go Safe employees do not have the required authority to help prosecute speeding cases in the District Court.
The ruling by Judge Patrick Durcan in the test case before Ennis District Court is to spark a fresh High Court challenge to the legislation around the system of a privately owned firm being involved in the prosecution of speeding motorists.
The contract is worth about €17 million a year to the Go Safe consortium, and the works involve the deployment of 50 speed camera vans operated by Go Safe employees at locations across the country.
Go Safe employees are required to go to court to give evidence where speeding motorists have not paid their fines.
However, in the case brought forward by Ennis solicitor Daragh Hassett, Judge Durcan said yesterday it was not sufficient for a prosecution for Go Safe operators to just say they were employed by the company, that they had done various courses, and that they were aware of the contract between their firm and the Minister for Justice.
Judge Durcan said that like fisheries board officers, Revenue Commissioner officers and traffic wardens, Go Safe personnel should have a warrant that gives them specific powers to carry out their duties.
“It seems to me that they have to have specific powers, pursuant to a specific statutory provision to do a specific thing – and that is not there,” he added.
Uncertainty
However, Judge Durcan said that to remove any uncertainty over the issue the case should go forward to the High Court to decide upon.
The judge gave Insp Tom Kennedy and Mr Hassett two weeks to agree terms and make their arguments for the case to go forward to the High Court.
Mr Hassett said: “When the Minister for Justice previously threw Go Safe a lifejacket, this point wasn’t rectified.”
Judge Durcan told all parties that he would not let a backlog of Go Safe cases build up arising from the case going to the High Court.
