THE HIGH COURT has ruled that a judge erred when he refused to impose convictions on drivers caught speeding in what he deemed an “unjust speed zone”, where he said prosecutions were being taken not for safety, but for “targets, statistics and finance”.

The court said on Thursday that the judge’s approach was wrong in law as his role was not to express a view on the correctness of the speed limit, but to apply the law as it stands.

In December 2024, Judge Andrew Cody at Portlaoise District Court found the relevant facts proven, but refused to convict 34 people who were driving over the 60km/h speed limit on a stretch of road at Clogheen, Monasterevin in Co Kildare.

In his decision, he criticised Kildare County Council for not reviewing the limit and said the prosecutions had “nothing to do with criminality and little to do with road safety and are driven not by safety, but by targets, statistics and finance.”

He said: “Prosecutions that are driven by targets, statistics and finance have no place in this courtroom and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

“I have come to the conclusion that [speed camera contractors] GoSafe deliberately targeted an unjust speed zone in the townland of Clogheen, where there were rich pickings and, as the saying goes, they were shooting fish in a barrel.”

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) sought a judicial review of Judge Cody’s decision in four ‘lead’ cases, which all arose from charges of speeding at Clogheen.

The DPP asked the High Court to quash the District Court judge’s decision and to find that where the facts of an offence are proven, the court is obligated in law to record a conviction and impose a statutory penalty.

In his judgment published on Thursday, Mr Justice Cian Ferriter said the case raised the “important question of judicial impartiality in the hearing of criminal proceedings” and said the judge’s comments were “manifestly” in breach of fair procedures.

Mr Justice Ferriter wrote that the issues arose from pre-prepared remarks made by Judge Cody on 19 December 2024, in which he “made clear his view” that the 60km/h limit at Clogheen was too low given the nature of the road.

Judge Cody had said there was a “disproportionate” number of speeding prosecutions arising from Clogheen, a 700-metre stretch of road.

In a five-page document, which was circulated by him in court, he said: “The 60kph speed zone in the townland of Clogheen represents 0.003% of the road network of this District Court area”.

He added: “For the past two years, I have been very concerned about the excessive number of prosecutions by GoSafe for exceeding the speed limit in the townland of Clogheen.”

He continued: “The question has to be asked: how can 700m of roadway have the same level of prosecutions as all of Kilkenny, Louth or Mayo and over five times for the entire county of Leitrim?”

Mr Justice Ferriter said that the judge’s approach was “wrong” in law and inappropriate comment for a judge to make as his role was not to express a view on correctness of speed limits adjudicated by another body.

Mr Justice Ferriter said the role of the judge, however well-intentioned, was to apply the law as it stands, not how the judge thinks it should be.

None of the 34 drivers opposed the DPP’s action, noted Mr Justice Ferriter.

He further noted that the DPP had adopted a “sensible approach” by not requesting the cases be remitted to the District Court, meaning that none of the 34 drivers will be convicted or receive penalty points.

He added that there was no question of bad faith or misconduct by Judge Cody, but he legally erred in his approach, which could have resulted in a “reasonable apprehension of predetermination”.