Majority of speeding cases at Trim District Court were withdrawn, struck out or dismissed over a four year period

The number of speeding prosecutions coming before Trim District Court increased by more than 630 per cent between 2023 and 2024, yet more than two-thirds of those cases did not proceed.

Analysis by the Journal Investigates of Courts Service figures shows 814 speeding offences came before the Co Meath court in 2024. Of those, 557 were withdrawn, struck out or dismissed.

The findings formed part of a nationwide investigation into speeding prosecutions which found almost one-in-every-two speeding cases before Irish District Courts did not proceed between 2021 and 2024.

While the national figures point to various issues within the prosecution system, Trim emerged as one of the courts with the highest proportion of cases which did not proceed.

In 2024, 68.4 per cent of speeding prosecutions before the court did not continue through prosecution.

In 2021, almost 72 per cent of speeding cases before Trim District Court did not proceed. The figure stood at 60.4 per cent in 2022 and 53.2 per cent in 2023.

To better understand the reasons behind the figures, The Journal Investigates worked alongside the Meath Chronicle to monitor three sittings of Trim District Court during May.

Court reporters also monitored Ennis and Nenagh District Courts after analysis of national data identified all three as recording significantly higher rates of speeding cases being withdrawn, struck out or dismissed than the national average.

The monitoring exercise was not intended to be representative of annual outcomes. Rather, it sought to provide a snapshot of the types of issues arising in speeding prosecutions and the reasons cases did not progress.

We also attended Letterkenny District Court in Co Donegal, which was selected as a comparator court because its overall outcomes broadly reflected average national trends.

Between 2021 and 2024, approximately 35 per cent of speeding prosecutions before Letterkenny did not proceed, significantly lower than the rates recorded in Trim, Nenagh and Ennis.

Inside the courtroom

A total of 65 speeding cases came before the court last month across three dates (5, 19 and 26 May). Just over half of the cases (35) resulted in a conviction.

In May the average fine imposed for these convictions was €151.43.

We found that the most common reasons for cases being struck out (22 cases) included defendants saying they had not received the Fixed Charge Penalty Notice (FCPN) or a defendant proving they were not the driver at the time of the offence.

The vast majority of speeding offences in Trim were detected using automated systems rather than manual Garda checks, with Go Safe vans accounting for 39 cases. Average Speed Cameras accounted for 23 cases and only two cases were attributed to direct Garda detection.

The cases that didn’t go ahead

Following detection of an alleged speeding offence, a Fixed Charge Penalty Notice (FCPN) will issue, allowing 28 days for the recipient to pay €160. However, if that payment period elapses, the recipient of the FCPN has another 28 days in which to pay €240. If that period also elapses, a summons is likely to follow, although at that point there is still a third payment option, typically of €320, that would mean the recipient avoiding having to appear in court.

While 22 cases were struck out during the period covered by The Meath Chronicle, in eight of those it turned out the fine had already been paid.

In another five cases, the defendant stated they were not the driver at the time of the offence or had nominated another person.

- Four cases were struck out due to procedural issues, such as missing camera calibration certificates or the absence of a prosecuting Garda in court, which was a factor in one case dating back six years.

- One case was struck out specifically because camera calibration certificates were not available in court

- Another case was struck out because it occurred six years prior and there was no Garda present in court to prosecute.

- Five cases relating to speeding offences were dismissed across May, with individual circumstances taken into account by the judge.

- In one case there had been a family bereavement in the same week as the summons was issued, while in another case a defendant explained that they had missed the payment deadline by a few days due to the birth of a baby.

- Another case was dismissed after the defendant explained that they had been in and out of hospital at the time they were due to pay the FCPN.

- In one case a case was dismissed even after a guilty plea, with the defendant explaining that when they were 9kmph over the speed limit they had been “concentrating on the road on a dark night”. The court also heard they had no convictions.

Majority ‘latch on’ to not receiving FCPNs

One District Court judge, who spoke anonymously to The Journal Investigates about the operation of speeding prosecutions, said claims that motorists never received a penalty notice had become one of the most common reasons cases failed.

"The vast majority of people have latched onto saying that they did not receive the penalty notice [FCPN]," the judge said.

"And if they go into the witness box and say they didn't receive it, you have to let them off."

The judge questioned why FCPNs are sent by ordinary post rather than registered delivery and suggested a pilot scheme could help establish whether notification failures are contributing to cases collapsing.

The judge also pointed to difficulties serving summonses in apartment developments and multi-unit housing complexes.

"Multi-unit developments are a huge problem," they said.

A spokesperson for the Courts Service said: "Judges decide cases on the facts argued before them by the parties involved in the cases and a decision to convict or otherwise is solely one for judges after hearing the facts of cases.

"We do not comment on factors that contribute to differences in outcomes of speeding prosecutions between districts. There are too many factors that can play a role in the outcome of court cases so it would be purely speculative on our behalf to assign reasons for different outcomes."

The Courts spokesperson also said that An Garda Siochana was responsible for the cases brought before court and was therefore best placed to address trends in case volume.

"They are the prosecutors and we take the prosecutions they provide without questioning the reasons why," the spokesperson said, adding that the courts have no role in applying penalty points.

The findings come against a backdrop of ongoing concern about excessive speed on Irish roads. Research by the Road Safety Authority (RSA) has found that one in four drivers killed in fatal crashes were exceeding a safe speed immediately before the collision.

An RSA spokesperson said enforcement, detection and the swift administration of sanctions remain critical to deterring dangerous driving behaviour.

“While the RSA is not in a position to comment in detail on The Journal’s findings in relation to speeding prosecutions, we can assert that enforcement (supported by public awareness activity to support the enforcement), detection and the swift administration of appropriate sanctions are key to deterring engagement in dangerous behaviours such as speeding,” they said.

“This is per the international road safety literature, and in particular the internationally recognised theory of deterrence. The RSA recently published a report on the deterrence theory, published here that outlines this theory in detail and its application to the road safety context.”