‘No court authority for Go Safe vans staff’

A district court judge yesterday ruled that Go Safe employees don’t 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 controversial system of a privately owned firm being involved in the prosecution of speeding motorists across the country.

The contract is worth around €17m per year to the Go Safe consortium and the works involve the deployment of 50 speed camera vans operated by Go Safe employees at various locations across the country.

Go Safe employees are required to go to court to give evidence where speeding motorists haven’t paid their speeding fines. However, in a test case brought forward by Ennis solicitor Daragh Hassett, Judge Durcan said it is not sufficient for a prosecution for Go Safe operators to just say that they are employed by the company; that they have done various courses and that they are 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 they have to have specific powers, pursuant to a specific statutory provision to do a specific thing and that is not there.”

However, Judge Durcan said 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.”

Speaking after court yesterday, Mr Hassett said: “I’m not at all surprised at the ruling and very much welcome Judge Durcan’s thorough analysis of the point I raised, namely the very obvious lack of authority of the witness from Go Safe to give evidence in what is a criminal prosecution.

“The argument I have made here is whilst the minister may validly outsource the pursuit of criminal prosecutions in the road traffic sphere — for the first time in the State’s history to my knowledge — her office and its client who is ‘Go Safe’ cannot avoid following the evidential procedures which are properly enshrined in our courts.

“It has universal application in various other criminal prosecutions. Why should ‘Go Safe’ be allowed can to circumvent the law applied to others? In a previous case, I had been granted court discovery of the Go Safe contract in place against robust protest.

“When it came down to it, the State withdrew the speeding case rather than have it given to me.”

Judge Durcan told all parties in the district court yesterday that he wouldn’t let a backlog of Go Safe cases be built up arising from the case going to the High Court.

The Go Safe consortium won the €80m garda contract to operate the speed camera vans in 2009. It recorded operating profits of around €50,000 per week in 2012.