Three people have lost their separate High Court challenges aimed at overturning their convictions for speeding.
Mr Justice Michael White ruled none of the grounds advanced by the two women and a man in judicial review proceedings entitled them to orders quashing their convictions by the District Court.
All three received fixed penalty notices after vehicles registered as owned by them were recorded on different dates in 2013 as driven in excess of the applicable speed limits.
None paid the notices as required and all argued they were not driving the vehicles at the time. They also failed to return, within the prescribed time limits, the relevant notices stating they were not the drivers.
Mr Justice White said the Road Traffic Act states, in prosecutions for fixed penalty offences where the driver is not identified by gardaí and where the notice has not been returned with another person nominated as driver, it is presumed the owner of the vehicle was the driver at the time of the offence.
That presumption can be rebutted on the balance of probabilities, the judge said.
He rejected as incorrect arguments by all three owners their sworn evidence they were not driving at the time was sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt requiring their acquittals and said the relevant court of fact had discretion to accept or reject that evidence.
The District Court is not entitled to proceed to conviction relying only on failure of the relevant owner to return the form designating the correct driver, he noted. The District Court had to be satisfied all the ingredients of the offence were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Dismissing all three cases, the judge ruled there was sufficient evidence before the relevant District Judges for them to convict and said the District Court judges had discretion to accept or reject the evidence put before them.
None of the three applicants had been given leave to argue each of the district judges erred in law by treating the alleged offence as a strict liability offence, where a registered owner can be convicted of the offence if they fail to complete the form designating another person as the driver at the relevant time, he noted.
While there was evidence to suggest the Distrct Court may have erred in one case in relying only on the fact the relevant driver failed to return the fixed penalty notice designating another person as the driver, the High Court could not be sure that was the fact relied upon by the District Court. That applicant had not secured leave to argue that point, he added.
That particular applicant was convicted in October 2014 of driving a vehicle in excess of the 50km applicable limit on October 5th 2013 at Knockthomas, Castlebar, Co Mayo. The man denied he was driving and said his wife, as far as he knew, had been driving. She did not give evidence and her husband said she was unable to attend court.
In another of the cases, where a woman said her husband, rather than she, was driving the vehicle, the District Court "certainly" made a decision against the weight of evidence but that was a matter for appeal rather than the quashing order sought via judicial review, Mr Justice White said. That case involved an October 2014 conviction for driving in excess of 50km per hour on November 9th 2013 at R320 Gortgarve, Kiltimagh, Co Mayo.
The third case was brought by a woman over her September 2014 conviction for driving a vehicle at 69km in a 50km zone on December 13th 2013 at Blackacre, Tuam, Co Galway. The woman did not attend court but her daughter told a Garda on the morning of the hearing, she, the daughter, was driving.
