7th February 2017


A Cheann Comhairle, Members of the House and those concerned members of the public in attendance today, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce the Courts (No. 2) Bill 2016. I look forward to engaging with Members as we progress the Bill through the various Stages. The purpose of the Bill is to provide part of the legislative framework necessary for the introduction of what is termed “the third payment option” in relation to road traffic offences in respect of which a fixed charge notice may be served under Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 2010.


This short Bill of just four sections is centred around the amendment, for technical reasons, of section 1 of the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986. It will allow for the integrated printing of a summons and the related fixed charge notice for serving on persons alleged to have committed certain road traffic offences. This will ensure that those who commit such offences can be brought fully to account.


In this respect, the Courts (No. 2) Bill 2016 is a joint initiative between myself as Minister for Justice and Equality, and the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Shane Ross TD. The intention would be that when enacted, its reforming measures will be made operative by Minister Ross through his commencement of section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 – that being the section which provides the legislative basis to bring these reforms into practical effect. This Courts (No.2) Bill will, therefore, provide the legal nuts and bolts for the desired reform while section 44 of the Road Traffic Act of 2010 will trigger that reform into operation. The designated date for this to happen, including with the relevant IT supports in place, is 1st June 2017.


The reform objective behind the very technical provisions of today’s Bill is to resolve an unintended legal loophole which has emerged over time. At present, under the Road Traffic Act 2002, a person who does not pay a fixed charge notice, within the 56 days set down in law, is served with a summons. At that point the person has no further payment option and must attend court. However, persons regularly appear in court and state that they did not receive the original fixed charge notice, and many such cases are dismissed by the Courts. In these cases neither the fixed charge nor the penalty points end up being applied. This can even happen in cases where a person might not be taking issue with the alleged infringement concerned.


As the law stands at the moment, a fixed charge notice offence affords two payment options before a summons is issued requiring a person to attend court. That is to say,


The key objective now proposed under the Courts (No. 2) Bill is to provide the essential technical and administrative measures to enable the introduction of a “third payment option”, that is to say payment of the fixed amount plus 100%, while upholding any penalty points concerned without necessitating further Court or Garda time. This third option will be made available up to seven days before the date on which an offender will otherwise have been summoned to appear before the court. If a person takes up this option, proceedings in respect of the alleged offence will be discontinued and the person need not attend Court.

This is a short but highly technical Bill of four sections whose rationale is set out in greater technical detail for Members’ attention in the relevant Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. However, I will endeavour to summarise the Bill’s provisions as follows: 


Section 1 of today’s Bill provides for the definition of the term “Act of 1986” as meaning the Courts (No. 3) Act 1986 that being the Act which sets out in primary law the provisions relating to the issue of District Court summonses in relation to offences. 


Section 2 of today’s Bill amends section 1 of the 1986 Act in the form of six amendments as set out in paragraphs (a) to (f).  Paragraph (a) adds a new section 1(2A) to the Act of 1986 which provides that the issue of a summons under section 1(2) of the Act of 1986 shall be deemed to have been effected by the transmission by the appropriate court office by electronic means of all the information necessary to create the summons document in an automatic manner, i.e. using electronic means.  Paragraph (b) adds a new section 1(4A) to the Act of 1986 in a way which is intended to allow for the automated processing of batches of summonses or applications for summonses. Paragraph (c) of section 2 provides for the insertion of a clause into section 1(8) of the Act of 1986 to include a reference to a summons the issue of which is deemed to have been effected under the new section 1(2A) to which I referred.  Paragraph (d) provides for the insertion of paragraph (aa) into section 1(9) of the Act of 1986 which is intended to ensure that a summons which has been created in an automatic manner shall be presumed to have been created on the basis of the information transmitted by the appropriate court office unless the contrary is shown.


Paragraph (e) provides for the insertion of a clause into section 1(10) of the Act of 1986 to include a reference to a summons the issue of which is deemed to have been effected under the new section 1(2A) to which I have just referred. Paragraph (f) provides for two defined terms to be inserted into section 1(14) of the Act of 1986, namely a revised definition of the term “document” and the substitution of the definition of the term “true copy” in relation to a summons. 


Section 3 makes specific provision in relation to a summons to be issued in circumstances where the person who is alleged to have committed a specified road traffic offence is a member of the Garda Síochána.  At present, section 88(3) of the Courts of Justice Act 1924 and the relevant District Court Rules include a provision that a summons against a person who is a member of the Garda Síochána shall be signed by a Judge.  Subsection (1) seeks to set aside this restriction for the purposes of this Bill.


Here I would like to inform the House that the Government will be bringing forward an amendment to section 3 of the Bill at Committee Stage. This will essentially centre on the retention of the provisions of the current section 3(1)(a) while putting aside those of section 3(1)(b) of the Bill in its reference to section 29 of the Road Traffic Act 2010.  Upon further reflection in consultation with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport the need has emerged for a more detailed review to be undertaken of the issues arising around the current section 3(1)(b) than the narrow context of this Bill would allow. It is therefore considered that the relevant matters should be given further dedicated consideration in their own right including in further consultation with the key stakeholders. It is considered that the retention of section 3(1)(b) as it stands, while well intentioned, could slow down the overall passage of the Bill while these further issues are considered. While still under preparation by my Department in conjunction with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, the proposed amendment to section 3 will, of course, be explained in more detail to Members in the moving at Committee Stage of the amendment concerned.


Section 4 of today’s Bill deals with its short title; its collective citation and construction with the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Acts; and its commencement by means of ministerial order. 


In conclusion, I would like to commend this Bill to the House as a means of closing an undesirable loophole in the application of the Road Traffic Acts. It has the potential, if brought to enactment, to increase payment on foot of the relevant fixed charge notices, ensure the application of the relevant penalty points and keep down the number of cases that would otherwise go on to take up valuable Court and Garda time. This will provide further means of ensuring that those who commit such offences on our roads can be brought fully to account.