Offaly driver in 'important' case affecting thousands of motorists

Evidence against Rhode man before Tullamore District Court is 'inadmissible' and DPP is asked by Judge Andrew Cody to make submission on 'significant' issue

Published 13th May 2026, 19:30 BST Judge Andrew Cody considering case at Tullamore District Court | Tribune Pictures Evidence against Rhode man before Tullamore District Court is 'inadmissible' and DPP is asked by Judge Andrew Cody to make submission on 'significant' issue Sign up to our Offaly Live newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know you can manage your profile, and explore all of the available newsletters from Offaly Live within your account.

A LEGAL question about the prosecution of an Offaly driver has implications for thousands of motorists, Tullamore District Court heard today, May 13.

Judge Andrew Cody has asked the DPP for submissions relating to the admissibility of fixed charge penalty notices (FCPNs) which are sent by post.

These notices are posted to people being prosecuted for alleged road traffic offences and William Murphy (68), Hillview. Rhode , was prosecuted for driving without a valid NCT after being stopped by gardaí on August 2 last year.

Driving without a valid NCT is a fixed charge offence (liable for what is commonly known as an on the spot fine).

READ NEXT: Revenue seize 1.2 million cigarettes in county Offaly

At a previous hearing Mr Murphy challenged whether he had ever been served with the required FCPN.

Judge Cody said the issue is the admissibility of a certificate of posting from a company called Tico Mail Works Ltd.

Evidence was given about Tico Mail Works Ltd’s automated process for printing, packaging, and passing FCPNs to An Post for delivery. The court also heard evidence from Mr Murphy about changes of address and his history of receiving post.

A prosecution for a fixed charge offence cannot proceed unless an FCPN has been served and that service can be proved in court by a “certificate of posting” issued by An Post, or another postal service.

Judge Cody said the central issue if whether or not Tico is a postal service for the purposes of the relevant section of the 2010 Road Traffic Act and consequently whether a certificate can be admitted as proof of posting.

The judge was asked to dismiss the prosecution against Mr Murphy on the basis that Tico is not a postal service.

He decided that although Tico was listed as an authorised postal service provider, the evidence showed that it only printed and packaged notices and did not itself carry out core postal functions such as collection, transport, or delivery. Instead, An Post performed these functions.

The court decided that Tico Mail Works Ltd was not acting as a postal service provider and was a printing contractor to An Garda Síochána.

Therefore, its certificate could not qualify as a certificate issued by “An Post or another postal service” as the law required and the certificate of posting was found to be inadmissible. As a result, there was no valid proof of posting.

Judge Cody said today that the submission of defence counsel David Nugent , BL (instructed by Adam Dodd, solicitor) was a “good one” and though the court is considering stating a case to the High Court he has decided the DPP should first be asked to make submissions.

He said the hearing of Mr Murphy's prosecution took place over three days and during it there was evidence from a witness for Tico Mail Works that the company does not “actually carry out any post work”.

The judge said he is asking the DPP what is the meaning of “another postal service” in the Road Traffic Act; does the DPP accept that An Post is the only postal service involved in serving FCPNs; what evidence is there that Tico is a postal service; and if the DPP is not relying on Tico being a postal service, what is the basis for tendering a certificate of posting as evidence.

Judge Cody is also asking the DPP if it is supporting an application to state a case on the matter to the High Court.

He said the issue is “very important and significant” with over 25,000 fixed charge penalty notices prosecuted in the District Court each year and they take about six months to come to the court for a hearing.

“There are currently, in my estimate, somewhere in the region of 10,000 prosecutions that this affects,” said the judge.

He said relevant submissions on the matter should be filed with the court office and Mr Murphy's solicitor before close of business on May 26 next and the case will be mentioned again in court the following day, May 27.