William Coughlan (appellant) v Dublin Corporation - (respondent).
Judicial Review - Appeal against refusal to grant order of mandamus - Order sought requiring respondent to renew appellant's driving licence - Whether reasonable for respondent to require that application to renew licence be accompanied by original photograph rather than photocopy - Whether matter should be erred back to High Court.
The Supreme Court (before Mr Justice O'Flaherty, Mr Justice Blayney and Mr Justice Barrington); judgment delivered 28 March 1996.
THE stipulation made by Dublin Corporation that applications to renew driving licences must be accompanied by original photographs is a reasonable one which does not raise any questions of law or fact necessitating an inquiry by the High Court. The Supreme Court so held in dismissing an appeal against a refusal by the High Court to grant an order of mandamus directing the respondent to renew the appellant's driving licence.
The appellant appeared in person, John Doherty BL for the respondent.
MR JUSTICE O'FLAHERTY said that this was an appeal moved ex parte by the appellant in person although counsel for Dublin Corporation had come to assist the court. The circumstances giving rise to the appeal were that the appellant had held various driving licences, his most recent having expired in March 1993. When the appellant had attempted to renew this licence in April 1993 he was told that the respondent required two passport type photographs, signed on the back. On that occasion the appellant had come before the Supreme Court which had recommended that he comply with the aforesaid requirement.
The appellant subsequently presented photocopies of photographs to the respondent but these proved to be unacceptable. The appellant was now objecting to the distinction between original photographs and photocopies and gave evidence that the flash which occurred when a photograph was being taken affected his sight.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty said that the court felt that the stipulation with regard to original photographs made sense as photocopies could often be very blurred. In addition he felt that the appellant could find someone who would take his photograph in the open air without a flash and that once this was accomplished he would, receive his driving licence.
The respondent had indicated that while it was at one stage prepared to backdate the appellant's licence to March 1993 it was no longer in a position to do this. Mr Justice O'Flaherty accepted that under the relevant legislation, the respondent was not empowered to backdate a licence over such a long period. The respondent had also assured the appellant that some endorsements which had appeared on his licence but which were subsequently quashed by the High Court would not appear on the new licence.
In all the circumstances Mr Justice O'Flaherty felt that the appellant should comply with the respondents requirements and that there was no case either in law or on the facts which required the High Court to engage in an inquiry.
MR JUSTICE BLAYNEY and MR JUSTICE BARRINGTON agreed with Mr Justice O'Flaherty. Solicitors: Aveen M. Barry (Dublin) for the respondent.
