Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Skillington [2016] IECA 289 (13 October 2016)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Skillington [2016] IECA 289 (13 October 2016)

The court has discretion not to disqualify where special reasons are present, but employment hardship alone rarely constitutes a special reason. Special reasons may include hardship as an additional factor if they also relate to the offence. The question posed should be answered affirmatively, but in this case, no special reasons exist.

Citation
[2016] IECA 289
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Tony Skillington
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Question answered affirmatively; court has discretion, but no special reasons found in this case.
Legal Topics
Driving Without Insurance, Disqualification From Driving, Special Reasons for Non Disqualification
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Driving Without Insurance Disqualification From Driving Special Reasons for Non Disqualification

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Tony Skillington

Accused

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have discretion not to disqualify a person from driving where disqualification would impair livelihood?
  2. 2 Must special reasons relate to the offence or can they relate to the offender?

Ratio Decidendi

The court has discretion not to disqualify where special reasons are present, but employment hardship alone rarely constitutes a special reason. Special reasons may include hardship as an additional factor if they also relate to the offence. The question posed should be answered affirmatively, but in this case, no special reasons exist.

Court Disposition

Question answered affirmatively; court has discretion, but no special reasons found in this case.