Meanwhile on the Roads...

Thank you. That's basically a more 'legalese' version of what I set out to explain in simple terms, since the consideration of the location of the alleged offence (as well as the alleged offence itself) clearly hadn't occurred to others who were already discussing it.

Correct that the summons must state the particulars of the alleged offence. Again, the report from The Irish Times tells us the alleged offence as stated on the summons is that she was driving "at 131km/h on the M7 Ballinahinch, (westbound) Birdhill, on September 7th 2022". This doesn't appear to accurately reflect the particulars of the offence itself, and this is the point that the High Court was to rule on.

Incidentally, I note that the report was published on Monday April 7, and says the High Court "will be asked to decide on issues in the case on Thursday", which means last Thursday, April 10. I haven't seen anything further on it - I wonder when a ruling is actually due?

Considering that your last line tallies exactly with the main point I've been making, it looks like you've misunderstood some other part of my post. Apologies if it wasn't clear.

The Irish Times article only states what the FCPN listed, not the summons.

Nowhere in the article is anything mentioned about a potentially deficient summons and that is not the case the defendant made.

A summons can state where an offence 'arose', which is different from where an offence 'took place'. Arose has previously been interpreted to include referring to where an offence was detected, even if the offence did not take place at that precise location.

In this example, the offence 'arose' at the second speed camera of the average speed system even if the offence took place somewhere unknown between the two cameras. The reason the defendent did not put forward an argument of a deficient summons is because this is long since settled.

meanwhile - Sunshine causing traffic danger at Laois pedestrian crossing

“There is only one light at the top. When it’s very sunny it’s difficult to see the light flashing. I saw this when we had good weather recently. A spot would hit you straight on, it’s an easy fix,”

I am still seeing this guy on my morning commute around the Nassau street area and its makes me more and more angry.

My wife had an interaction with him yesterday while I was working from home that's really pissed me off.

He dangerously overtook a female cyclist in the cycle track as he does, too close and swerves in front.

This female cyclist yelled out at him to slow down, he was being dangerous - at which case he called her a c*nt.

My missus, knowing what he's like, caught up with the female cyclist and said not to mind him, he's a lunatic and always does this. At which point he called her a bitch and to mind her own business.

She said he then sped off as usual, through a pedestrian a crossing, almost hitting pedestrians.

We've both noticed that he's actually foaming and spitting at the mouth when ranting at people.

Not sure what to do? I'd say I see him twice a week now on my commute and I know I shouldn't let it get to me but it's really really starting to annoy me.

Record and report him to the Gardaí maybe? He's seriously either soon going to crash into a pedestrian, cause a car crash or get a thump from someone.

Record and report.

If he was a driver behaving this way, it's what you would be told to do so I can't see why you shouldn't just because it's a cycle. We want more people cycling, not less, and this sort of aggressive behaviour…

Very difficult to do in practice though. If you wear a helmet camera, you might just catch him again. Otherwise, you'd have to set up a 'stakeout' on Nassau St, probably for weeks, in the hope of catching him again.

More and more like a legal forum discussion here!

FWIW, I meant 'proceedings' as in the proceedings in general, which started with the FCPN being issued. I didn't mean it to apply specifically to the court proceedings.

But NVM. The point has been well made that the issue refers to matters other than the actual speed. We both understand that, and I presume everybody else here understands that by now as well.

It was the district court judge who referred it, not the defendant.

Anyway, I can see this going further. The judge acknowledged that there was an error in the form of the FCN but held there was no evidence the defendant was misled by the error. How can you not be misled by an error?

The issue is the error, not the interpretation of it.

I was going to say, does anyone just accept that they did wrong and take the consequences anymore? Why would you go through this over a speeding offence?

The issue is the interpretation of it. It's clear that the applicant in this case was in no way misled by the omission of the word 'average' from the FCN.

The full judgment is available here: https://www.courts.ie/view/Judgments/0cfc0e5b-a7e6-48c6-8c43-dd86d288e1e8/00eb4399-677e-4a62-b9a0-d8257abb78dd/2025_IEHC_237.pdf/pdf

'The FCN was duly served and the error in the form of this notice does not render it invalid unless the evidence of the defendant, and the finding of the Court, was to the effect that the defendant was thereby misled,or he or she thinks it is different in substance to what it is. Given the lack of such evidence by the defendant in the circumstances the FCN was in compliance with the regulations and statutory provisions. Any perceived error could be dealt with under s.12 of the Interpretation Act 2005.'

'That the defendant later became aware that it was an average speed of 131km/h at a time when she had the opportunity to accept and pay the fixed charge notice was relevant to whether or not she had been afforded adequate information on the allegation made against her and in dealing with any prejudice asserted.'

Finally,

'As this judgment is being delivered electronically, with regards to the issue of costs, as the respondent has been entirely successful, it is my provisional view that the DPP should be entitled to her costs, to be adjudicated in default of agreement.'