Speed ruling to affect cases

A HIGH Court decision overturning a district judge’s order compelling the DPP to make wide-ranging discovery of documents relating to the electronic prosecution of a speeding charge is expected to have a knock-on effect on the conduct of similar cases.

District Judge Geoffrey Browne made the discovery order in September 2007 without holding a hearing into whether the 29 categories of documents sought were relevant, despite the DPP’s request for a relevancy hearing.

He also made at least 10 similar orders in other cases, and apparently intended to make such discovery standard in such cases, the DPP complained.

Mr Justice Bryan McMahon this week granted an appeal by the DPP against the discovery order granted to solicitors for a man charged with speeding at Aughamore, Mayo, on March 18, 2006.

Judge Browne was not entitled to make the discovery order without first conducting a hearing into whether the documents were relevant, Mr Justice McMahon said. He returned the matter to the District Court for a relevancy hearing.

The judge also rejected claims by the motorist’s solicitor that there was a concerted effort by the State to conceal a “flawed procedure” regarding the electronic prosecution of speeding offences.

He accepted the State’s denial of claims that a prosecution of another speeding case — withdrawn by the DPP after Judge Browne ordered full disclosure — would have been a “test case” relating to electronic prosecution of speeding offences.