30-year road ban for third no insurance conviction

A Portlaoise man convicted of driving without insurance who had two previous convictions for the same offence has been put off the road for 30 years.

At last week’s district court sitting in Portlaoise, Judge John Coughlan told Keith McEvoy, with addresses listed at 70 O’Moore Place, and 80 St Brigid’s Place, Portlaoise, that he did not want him to drive again.

McEvoy faced charges of having no insurance, no NCT, no tax, and non display of a valid NCT disc, at Fielbrook, Dublin Road, Portlaoise, on April 16 last year.

Garda Inspector Aidan Farrelly, who gave State’s evidence in the case, said that McEvoy had 25 previous convictions.

Among the previous convictions were two counts of driving without insurance, and a count of the unauthorised taking of a car. These offences date back to 2001.

Ruling that this was a serious offence, Judge Coughlan disqualified McEvoy from driving for 30 years.

“I don’t want you driving again,” warned the judge.

A fine of €10 was also imposed, with McEvoy given five months to pay.

Recognisance was fixed, on McEvoy’s own bond of €100, in the event of an appeal against the road ban.

McEvoy was also charged with the possession of drugs, at Apt 5 Fielbrook, Dublin Road, Portlaoise, on March 27 last year.

Insp Farrelly gave evidence that McEvoy was discovered with heroin valued at €10.

Defence, Mr Philip Meagher explained that traces of the drug were discovered by gardaí on a piece of tin foil.

Mr Meagher said that McEvoy is no longer a drug addict, but he had suffered with previous difficulties.

Defence concluded by saying that McEvoy is now attending a clinic for his drug problem.

On the heroin matter, Judge Coughlan ordered a probation report on McEvoy and the case was put back to April 3.

“If you don’t cooperate I’ll put you in prison,” Judge Coughlan told McEvoy.

There was also an additional charge against McEvoy of using threatening or abusive behaviour in public, at Fielbrook, Dublin Road, on April 16 last year.

This matter was taken into consideration in the judge’s ruling.


Back to the top of the page