Road traffic legislative provision is contrary to the Constitution

High Court finds that section 44(10) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 as amended, which came into force on 1 June 2017, is not compatible with Article 38.1 of the Constitution, on the grounds that: (a) the word “served” in sections 35, 38 and 44 of the 2010 Act should be interpreted consistently; (b) “served” means “posted and received” but the rebuttable presumption in section 38 means that postage is deemed to be good service unless and until it is proved by the accused person that he or she did not receive the fixed charge notice; (c) section 35(2) makes service of the first fixed charge notice a precondition for prosecution; (c) section 44(10), in providing that it shall not be a defence for the person served with the summons to show that he or she was not served with the first fixed charge notice has the effect of creating an internal contradiction in the legislative regime such that if a motorist proves he or she was not served, one provision tells the District Court to dismiss while the other tells the court to convict; and (d) that this rendered the applicant’s trial other than one conducted in due course of law in accordance with Article 38.1.