THE HIGH COURT
			No. 1998 No. 1114 SS
IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACTS 1961 TO  1991 
BETWEEN
THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
			PROSECUTOR
AND 
GARY HYDE
			ACCUSED
JUDGMENT of  Mr Justice McCracken delivered the 5th day of February 1999

	These proceedings arise out of a Case Stated by Judge Gerard Haughton sitting at the District Court in Cork City seeking directions as to whether three summonses addressed to the accused are fundamentally defective.  All three Summonses arise out  of alleged infringements by the accused of the provisions of European Communities (Road Transport) (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 393 of 1986).  All three offences were alleged to have occurred on 21st June 1996 at North Ring Road, Ballyvolane, in Cork City and relate to a commercial motor vehicle which comes within the provisions of the said  statutory instrument.
	The following were the allegations in each of the Summonses:-

(1)	That the accused did on the 21st day of June 1996 at North Ring Road , Ballyvolane, in the City of Cork, a public place in the Court area and district area aforesaid being the driver of motor vehicle no. 89 MO 2254 did not enter the following information on his record sheet:
	(a)	surname and first name;
	(b)	date and place where use of  the sheet begins;
	(c)	the registration number of the vehicle;
	(d)	the odometer reading at the start of the journey
	In contravention of Article 15(5)(a)(b)(c)(d) of the Council Regulations (EEC) No. 3821/85 of the 20th day of December 1985 contrary to Regulation 15 of the European Community (Road Transport) Regulations 1986 S.I. 393 of 1986 made under the provisions of the European Communities Act 1972 as amended.
(2)	That the accused did on the 21st day of June 1996 at the North Ring Road, Ballyvolane, in the City of Cork in the Court area and district area aforesaid being a crew member of motor vehicle registered no. 89 MO 2254, installed with recording equipment in compliance with Regulation 6 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1986, failed to produce on request by an authorised officer, in compliance with Regulation 10 of the said regulations, record sheets giving full details of all relevant periods for not less than the given days preceding the time when the check was made in contravention of Article 15(7) of Regulation (EEC) No. 3812/85 of the Council of 20th December 1985, contrary to Regulations 15 and 16 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1986 made under the provisions of  Section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 as amended by the European Communities (Amendment) Act  1973.
(3)	That the accused did on the 21st day of June 1996 at the North Ring Road, Ballyvolane, in the City of Cork in the Court area and district aforesaid  being the driver of the motor vehicle registered no. 89 MO 2254 installed with recording equipment in compliance with  Regulation (EEC) No. 1453/70 of the Council of the 20th June 1970 as amended by Council Regulation No. 1787/73/EEC and Council Regulation No. 2828/77/EEC and applied by the European Communities (Road Transport) (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1979, failed to use recording equipment installed in the said vehicle in compliance with the Regulation 7 of the European Communities (Road  Transport) (Recording Equipment) Regulations 1979, contrary to Article 3 of Regulation 9 of the European Communities (Road Transport) (Exemptions) Regulations 1980."

	A general objection is taken on behalf of the accused on the basis that Article 19 of the Council Regulation obliges Member States to adopt laws covering certain  matters, but in fact Statutory Instrument No. 393 of 1986 goes beyond what is required by Article 19 and imposes obligations and creates offences which are not strictly required by the Council  Regulation.  While that would certainly appear to be so,. these proceedings are not concerned with alleged offences which are outside the EEC Regulation, and I would not propose to comment on the validity of any offence which is based on a breach of such provisions.  I think it is sufficient to say that Regulation 15 of the Statutory Instrument specifies that any person who contravenes certain specific articles of the Council Regulation  shall be guilty of an offence, and it is in respect of such alleged contraventions that the first two of these Summonses have been brought.  Regulation 15 clearly creates a series of offences in relation to such contraventions.
	In relation to the specific Summonses, and the arguments made against their validity, I would comment as follows.
Summons No. 1
	In my view this charge is quite clear.  Article 15(5) of the Council Regulation specifies certain matters which each crew member shall enter on his record sheet and alleges that no such entries were made.  Regulation 15 of the Statutory Instrument provides that any person who contravenes Article 15(5) of the Council Regulations shall be guilty of an offence.  In my view this charge is  absolutely clear and it should be proceeded with.
Summons No. 2
	This charge relates to an alleged  contravention of  Article 15(7) of the Council Regulation which provides:-

	"Whenever requested by an authorised inspecting officer to do so, the driver must be able to produce record sheets for the current week, and in any case for the last week of  the previous week on which he drove."
	
The charge alleged  that the accused failed to produce record sheets "giving full details of all relevant periods for not less than the given days preceding the time when the check was made."  In my view this is an extremely convoluted formula, the meaning of which I find it difficult to understand.  I am sure it is intended to refer to the record sheets as set out in Article 15(7), but, although there is a reference to that article, I think that the accused is certainly entitled to a much clearer description of  the offence charged.  I do not think that the charge needs to specify the actual dates, provided it used  the words set out in Article 15(7), but I think the charge is insufficient in the light of its failure to do either.
	I think this is a defect which comes within Rule 88 of the 1988 District Court Rules, which I understand were those in force at the relevant time.  There is an omission in the charge, in that it does not adequately specify the relevant dates, but I do not think it is for me to determine whether such omission has misled or prejudiced the accused or might affect the merits of the case.  This is a determination which must be made by the District Judge pursuant to Rule 88(3) upon hearing such evidence or arguments as he thinks fit.  I would, therefore, remit the matter back to the District Court so that the second charge may be further dealt with by the learned District Court Judge under Rule 88 and in accordance with the principles set out in The State (Duggan) v Evans 112 ILTR 61
Summons No. 3.	
	For some reason which I find impossible to understand,  this charge is not brought under Regulation 15 of the 1986 Regulations, but is purported to be brought under earlier regulations of 1979 and 1980, and is a complaint of failure to comply with certain EEC Regulations of 1970, as amended.  In fact the 1970 Regulation has been repealed by the Council Regulation No. 3821/85, and the 1979 Statutory Instrument also referred to in the charge has also been revoked.  Accordingly, these charges have been brought in respect of an alleged offence which did not exist at the time the charges were brought, and the Summons is clearly fundamentally defective.
	Accordingly, I would advise that:-

1.	The first Summons is valid and should be proceeded with.
2.	The second Summons is defective, and it is a matter for the learned District 	Judge to consider what steps he should take in relation to it pursuant to Rule 	88 of the District Court Rules.  Accordingly I will remit this matter back to the 	District Court.
3	The third Summons is fundamentally defective and cannot be proceeded with.