Case questioning the integrity of GoSafe dismissed in Limerick court

A CASE focused on a contested allegation of speeding, which questioned the integrity of the speed detection systems used nationally by GoSafe vans, has been dismissed.

It is anticipated that the State will issue an appeal to the High Court by way of a case stated - which looks at a point of law.

The alleged speeding offence happened on November 25, 2024 on the N24 in the Herbertstown area and it first came before the district court in Kilmallock on June 10, 2025.

A GoSafe van detected driver Wilson Robb from Moycullen, Galway, allegedly driving at a speed of 95km in an 80km zone.

Judge Patricia Harney dismissed the case in Kilmallock District Court on Friday last (October 23) and said this was “in the interest of justice.”

In outlining her decision, Judge Harney said that solicitor Patrick Horan had sought to carry out an inspection of the GoSafe vans and the speed detection equipment used by them.

She said that an inspection was ordered and this would mean “the ability to interrogate the machine.”

The judge noted that engineer Mark Jordan carried out an inspection and presented his report in court and while the State did not appeal the judge’s order for the inspection, they did impose restrictions on the inspection, which Judge Harney deemed to be “unreasonable.”

When chartered engineer Mark Jordan gave evidence at an earlier hearing in October, the court heard that during his inspection, he was not allowed to take photographs of the computer screen and to see how the software worked at each level.

In his report, which he read out in court, Mr Jordan said that he “could not verify” if the operator can delete files on the system, as digital images are taken when a speed is detected.

He also could not verify the process when a number plate is not readable in whole or in part.

Mr Jordan told the court that he couldn’t validate claims that the system can monitor up to 10 vehicles at a time.

“Expertise was not at hand to answer questions about the system,” he said.

Judge Harney declared that while Mr Jordan delivered his report in March of this year, that “no contrary report or perspective was submitted by the State”, but that the State on the last court date earlier in October “simply arrived with witnesses without adequate notice of who they were” or what evidence they would give.

On that day, the State had an innovation engineer from Redflex who designed the system, along with another engineer from a Dutch-based company who certify and validate the equipment, present in court, but they didn’t get the opportunity to testify.

The judge said: “We are now 16 months on from when the matter first appeared on the list.”

She said that an inspection “at its most basic level” was frustrated by the State and she said: “I believe in the interest of justice, I should dismiss.”