A man who sued the State alleging the law requiring wearing of seatbelts breached his constitutional rights, including to life, has lost a Supreme Court appeal on all grounds.
Eddie Kershaw said he should be exempt from wearing a seatbelt because he needed to be able to get out of his car “quick enough” to defend himself against, or get away from, “abusive” gardaí.
He has at least 26 convictions for not wearing a seatbelt and, as a result of some, was in early 2014 disqualified from driving for ten years. A stay applied on that and other penalties pending the outcome of his case.
Mr Kershaw, Cherry Orchard, Ballyfermot, Dublin, who described himself as an artist and human rights defender, secured leave ex-parte (one side only represented) in 2008 for judicial review of the requirement to wear a seatbelt.
He argued the laws breached his rights to life, bodily integrity and liberty.
The High Court later ruled his "bizarre" case against the State should be struck out as frivolous, vexatious and bound to fail.
The State described as “unstateable” and “scandalous” in the legal sense his core claim he was entitled to immunity from the relevant law due to his belief some gardai are“terrorists”.
He appealed to the Supreme Court. Mr Justice William McKechnie, giving the three judge court’s judgment dismissing the appeal, said it seemed Mr Kershaw has had much interaction with gardai dating back to 1996.
He had provided material implying, if not expressly alleging, he was subject to an unfair, targeted and continuing campaign by gardai and had referred some matters to the Garda Síochána Complaints Board which dismissed his complaints.
Whether what was alleged was true or false or grossly exaggerated, that was not for decision here and the court was expressing no view on the merits of such claims, the judge said. However, this seemed to be the general background for Mr Kershaw’s explanation for not wearing a seatbelt.
The judge ruled Mr Kershaw had no case for exemption arising from the fact taxi and hackney drivers were exempt until 2004 from wearing seatbelts due to concerns about possible attacks on them in their vehicles.
The law on seatbelts was for protection of the public and was a “necessary and proportionate” infringement on public liberty made for a legitimate purpose and clearly provided by law, he ruled.
Mr Kershaw had no stateable basis for the argument the extra few seconds it would take to remove his seatbelt if faced with a threat of assault from outside his vehicle would justify his exemption from the law.
There was also “absolutely no reality” to that argument grounding a constitutional challenge to the law.
While there have been a number of cases of Garda misconduct and harassment, and it was clear Mr Kershaw has had numerous dealings with gardai, there was no credibility to his argument the requirement to wear a seatbelt could in any way endanger his life or violate his right to bodily integrity by virtue of any anticipated attack by abusive gardai or otherwise, he held.
