Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Gilvarry [2014] IEHC 345 (11 July 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Gilvarry [2014] IEHC 345 (11 July 2014)

There was no evidence before the District Court that the permanent visual record was served on the accused as required by Section 81(3); evidence of the existence of the Go Safe contract suffices and full production is not required; enhancement of the image does not taint its evidential value unless evidence of alteration is provided.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 345
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Inspector McDonald); Accused: Michael Gilvarry
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Case Stated (consultative) / High Court Review of District Court Case Stated
Outcome
Case stated answered: (a) No; (b) No - evidence of contract suffices; (c) Does not arise.
Legal Topics
Speeding Offences, Statutory Interpretation, Evidence Requirements, Service of Documents
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Speeding Offences Statutory Interpretation Evidence Requirements Service of Documents

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Inspector McDonald)

Prosecutor

Michael Gilvarry

Accused

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (consultative) / High Court Review of District Court Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence existed that the permanent visual record was served on the accused as required by Section 81(3) of the Road Traffic Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution must hand in a copy of the contract between Go Safe and the Minister for Justice or if evidence of its existence suffices
  3. 3 Whether the permanent visual record is tainted by enhancement after downloading

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence before the District Court that the permanent visual record was served on the accused as required by Section 81(3); evidence of the existence of the Go Safe contract suffices and full production is not required; enhancement of the image does not taint its evidential value unless evidence of alteration is provided.

Court Disposition

Case stated answered: (a) No; (b) No - evidence of contract suffices; (c) Does not arise.

Orders

  • No evidence of service of permanent visual record: prosecution fails on this point.
  • Prosecution not required to produce full contract; evidence of existence suffices.