Man fails to have TV licence conviction overturned

A WILLIAMSTOWN man told Tuam Civil Court that he was not even living in a house when he was supposed to have been visited by a TV licence inspector and found to have no licence and fined for the offence.[private] However, a solicitor representing An Post argued that Noel Davis from Stonetown, Williamstown was living in the property at the time the television licence inspector called. Davis brought his case to last week's sitting of Tuam Civil Court when he alleged that he was fined at Tuam District Court in his absence and wanted this conviction overturned. He said that An Post brought a case against him for having no television licence. But he claimed that the summons related to a house that he was not living in at the time. 'In fact it was boarded up on the date the offence refers to', he insisted. But the An Post solicitor said that he was living in the property and there was a copy of a signed receipt for the summons that was issued. She said that a TV inspector called to the house in September 2009 and in May the following year he was fined for not having a television licence when the case came before Tuam District Court. She added that Davis was given time to appeal the conviction but that he didn't lodge an appeal. The solicitor added that An Post was then served with documentation asking that the conviction be struck out. Noel Davis told Judge Geoffrey Browne that the conviction was recorded against him in his absence and denied that it was his signature on the receipt of the summons. He then requested all documentation in relation to the TV licence prosecution to be handed over to him as he claimed that he was not in a position to properly fight the case. Judge Browne told him that he was in the wrong court and that he was not in a position to reverse a decision that was already made in the District Court. 'You will have to bring this matter to the Circuit Court because this court cannot do anything for you', he said, adding that he was striking out Mr. Davis's appeal on the basis that it was not in the correct forum.[/private]