Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Undriveable car, case dismissed

Options
«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    The laws an ass and so are drink driving laws. He got hammered, killed his car and because he had killed the car before being observed being intoxicated, he gets away with it? Pathetic!


  • Options
    #3
    Mar4ix
    Registered Users Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭Mar4ix


    thats a joke. if ill crash in somebodies car, damage it completely, there will be two not drivable motors, which leads to non collision existence, as so much damaged cars cant participate on road traffic. lol .


  • Options
    #4
    Oral Surgeon
    Registered Users Posts: 3,240 ✭✭✭Oral Surgeon


    mb1725 wrote: »
    Apologies if this has been posted already but I did not see it here, weird case:
    http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/undriveable-car-sees-case-dismissed-3141948.html

    The law is a funny animal.

    Mad, how much does that barrister cost???


  • Options
    #5
    andyseadog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,412 ✭✭✭andyseadog


    have i missed somthing or is the moral of the story -

    if your going to get caught drink driving, write the car off to an undrivable extent and you will get away with it? if so, thats scary.


  • Options
    #6
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Not a lawyer but wasn't the point that he could drive it to the scene?
    Not being able to drive it away from the scene is irrelevant.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    andyseadog wrote: »
    have i missed somthing or is the moral of the story -

    if your going to get caught drink driving, write the car off to an undrivable extent and you will get away with it? if so, thats scary.

    The key here is that he wasn't seen driving the car whilst pissed therefore wasn't in drunken charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle.


  • Options
    #8
    Berty
    Registered Users Posts: 26,149 ✭✭✭✭Berty


    If a Garda is chasing you in your car then you:

    Crash into a pole so badly your car is "undriveable" so you can then argue that no chase could ever have existed because the car is now in bits. :confused:

    Judge: You ran a bus full of orphans and nuns off a ravine and they all died in a terrible ball of fire

    Barrister: He then crashed his car into a pole and wrote it off

    Judge: No problem so, case dismissed. Car couldn't have been moving anyway, must have been an act of god or something


  • Options
    #9
    pred racer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,385 ✭✭✭pred racer


    biko wrote: »
    Not a lawyer but wasn't the point that he could drive it to the scene?
    Not being able to drive it away from the scene is irrelevant.

    I would have thought that too:confused:


  • Options
    #10
    Barr
    Registered Users Posts: 6,993 ✭✭✭Barr


    WTF - that story makes no sense. The Judge is totaly clueless.


  • Options
    #11
    gerryo777
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,216 ✭✭✭gerryo777


    Was the judge on the beer too??


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    Beer Baron wrote: »
    If a Garda is chasing you in your car then you:

    Crash into a pole so badly your car is "undriveable" so you can then argue that no chase could ever have existed because the car is now in bits. :confused:

    Judge: You ran a bus full of orphans and nuns off a ravine and they all died in a terrible ball of fire

    Barrister: He then crashed his car into a pole and wrote it off

    Judge: No problem so, case dismissed. Car couldn't have been moving anyway, must have been an act of god or something

    Actually. Had the Gardai been chasing him and kept him in sight before being breath tested he would've been done for drink driving.


  • Options
    #13
    Barr
    Registered Users Posts: 6,993 ✭✭✭Barr


    MugMugs wrote: »
    The key here is that he wasn't seen driving the car whilst pissed therefore wasn't in drunken charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

    Would this not be evidence enough

    "Garda said there was one person in the driving seat of the car, the engine was running, the lights were on and the keys were in the ignition. She spoke to <snip>, who was in the driving seat, and he was awake and responsive"


  • Options
    #14
    Berty
    Registered Users Posts: 26,149 ✭✭✭✭Berty


    MugMugs wrote: »
    Actually. Had the Gardai been chasing him and kept him in sight before being breath tested he would've been done for drink driving.

    Surely if you got this judge you could argue he couldn't be driving an MPV because it cannot be driven after the crash and therefore making the whole chase irrelevant.


  • Options
    #15
    mb1725
    Registered Users Posts: 1,381 ✭✭✭mb1725


    I assume this decision could set a precedent?


  • Options
    #16
    Jogathon
    Registered Users Posts: 516 ✭✭✭Jogathon


    That is so crazy? I really don't understand the logic of this. Is there more to the case than we know? Who is this 26 year old <snip> and is he related to someone important in Drogheda or elsewhere?


  • Options
    #17
    Barr
    Registered Users Posts: 6,993 ✭✭✭Barr


    mb1725 wrote: »
    I assume this decision could set a precedent?

    I'm sure others will try use it as a get out clause in court. Crazy decision by the Judge.


  • Options
    #18
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    Beer Baron wrote: »
    MugMugs wrote: »
    Actually. Had the Gardai been chasing him and kept him in sight before being breath tested he would've been done for drink driving.

    Surely if you got this judge you could argue he couldn't be driving an MPV because it cannot be driven after the crash and therefore making the whole chase irrelevant.
    Barr wrote: »
    MugMugs wrote: »
    The key here is that he wasn't seen driving the car whilst pissed therefore wasn't in drunken charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

    Would this not be evidence enough

    "Garda said there was one person in the driving seat of the car, the engine was running, the lights were on and the keys were in the ignition. She spoke to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056680129, who was in the driving seat, and he was awake and responsive"


    No. If he was being chased and crashed and watched until he was breathalysed then he could be done for drink.driving before he imobilised the vehicle.

    The key here is that he could've drank post accident and had commited no crime as the vehicle WAS imobilised by the time the Gardai got there.

    It has to be beyond reasonable doubt and in this case the judge deemed that it wasn't. He's one very lucky person if you ask me.

    Irish drink driving law is crazy. The offender has to be in sight of the Gardai at all times during the process. This makes convictions difficult.


  • Options
    #19
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    Jogathon wrote: »
    That is so crazy? I really don't understand the logic of this. Is there more to the case than we know? Who is this 26 year old Damien Kierans and is he related to someone important in Drogheda or elsewhere?

    As I understand it's actually far too simple, the gardai can only report on what they observe, a car too damaged to drive and a drunk beside it, you cannot assume the drunk was driving if the car isn't driving or capable of being driven so case dismissed, this has happened before many times I'm sure.


  • Options
    #20
    ABajaninCork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,411 ✭✭✭ABajaninCork


    Crazy. Just crazy.

    Yer man thought it was his lucky day. The pity of it all is, he probably won't learn his lesson, go off and do it again with possible worse consequences...

    I despair.


  • Options
    #21
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    Lots of people get of drink driving charges on a technicality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Barr
    Registered Users Posts: 6,993 ✭✭✭Barr


    I'm guessing his Insurers will not pay out given the circumstances.


  • Options
    #23
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    He wasn't convicted. They could well have to.


  • Options
    #24
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    Barr wrote: »
    I'm guessing his Insurers will not pay out given the circumstances.

    I'd be pretty sure they will, no law broken, car badly damaged etc. etc.


  • Options
    #25
    latenia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,997 ✭✭✭latenia


    So to take the judge's logic to the extreme, you could be standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand, covered in blood, but as the person was already dead when the gardaí arrived, you couldn't actually be guilty of taking a human life? Are there no other charges they can bring now? As far as I can tell, this decision gives carte blanche to anyone who feels like going for a joyride, as long as they make sure to total the car when they're finished.


  • Options
    #26
    franksm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭franksm


    That case beggars belief. Someone needs to look into just how competent that judge isn't.


  • Options
    #27
    ShadowHearth
    Registered Users Posts: 22,929 ✭✭✭✭ShadowHearth


    So if I am completely drunk while driving and hear the sirens behind me, then I increase speed and ram the nearest lamppost?

    No drink driving as I was not driving...

    Honesty, wtf? I still can't understand their reasoning behind it?!


  • Options
    #28
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    ShadowHearth wrote: »
    So if I am completely drunk while driving and hear the sirens behind me, then I increase speed and ram the nearest lamppost?

    No drink driving as I was not driving...

    Honesty, wtf? I still can't understand their reasoning behind it?!

    Eh, no. You can be done for drink driving. It's only if you're out of sight of the Gardai post crash.


  • Options
    #29
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    latenia wrote: »
    So to take the judge's logic to the extreme, you could be standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand, covered in blood, but as the person was already dead when the gardaí arrived, you couldn't actually be guilty of taking a human life? Are there no other charges they can bring now? As far as I can tell, this decision gives carte blanche to anyone who feels like going for a joyride, as long as they make sure to total the car when they're finished.

    Yes, just standing over a body with a knife covered in blood doesn't make you guilty of anything.


  • Options
    #30
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,336 ✭✭✭bladespin


    franksm wrote: »
    That case beggars belief. Someone needs to look into just how competent that judge isn't.

    Again, the problem isn't competency, it's actually the opposite, rigid enforcement of the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    franksm wrote: »
    That case beggars belief. Someone needs to look into just how competent that judge isn't.

    I'm sure the judge knows the law. It's not as simple as it seems.


Advertisement