Speeding and Cowboy Cop

tayto lover · 08-11-2012 8:49pm

TheNog wrote: »

Estimated speed of a driver is done a lot of the time. Personally I have given evidence against a dozen or so drivers on dangerous driving which included speed which I was able to determine from the speedometer of the patrol car.

Where you agree with it or not doesn't matter. It has and continues to be done

"Driving without due care" ?? How can he prove it? If the OP sticks to his story that he was exactly on the limit and that there was no question of an accident occurring while being observed by the Garda through his rear-view mirror I really cannot see a conviction in this case, if it ever gets that far.

Would I be right in thinking that "driving without due care" is only mainly used when an accident has occurred and when Dangerous or Careless Driving would not stand or would not be proven?

TheNog · 08-11-2012 9:07pm

tayto lover wrote: »

"Driving without due care" ?? How can he prove it? If the OP sticks to his story that he was exactly on the limit and that there was no question of an accident occurring while being observed by the Garda through his rear-view mirror I really cannot see a conviction in this case, if it ever gets that far.

Would I be right in thinking that "driving without due care" is only mainly used when an accident has occurred and when Dangerous or Careless Driving would not stand or would not be proven?

I'm on a mobile so can't split your post above for my answer.

Observing a persons driving through a rearview mirror is definitely more difficult but it can be done.

Careless driving and dangerous driving would mainly used for traffic accidents. Remember dangerous driving includes speed so if the Garda gives evidence that the OP was driving in excess of the speed limit and he gives an estimation say between 140-160kph, the OP could be convicted and disqualified.

If anything happens I would say it will a speeding fine or summons for dangerous driving if Garda believes OP was doing those speeds.

RustyNut · 08-11-2012 9:08pm

Zambia wrote: »

At all times you should know the speed you are doing otherwise your not really in control.

This surely can not be true.
Say for example I'm driving in an 80k zone I set my limiter to make sure I don't exceed the posted limit and pay close attention to the road, other traffic, ped's etc but don't bother looking down at my speedo on the basis that I know I'm within the limit.
How am I not really in control ?
What would the offence be ?

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 9:08pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Right. So if his solicitor asks "what speed was my client doing exactly Garda"?

In excess of 120kph

Pat Mustard · 08-11-2012 9:12pm

tayto lover wrote: »

"Would I be right in thinking that "driving without due care" is only mainly used when an accident has occurred and when Dangerous or Careless Driving would not stand or would not be proven?

'Careless driving' and 'driving without due care and attention' refer to the exact same offence under s.52 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0052.html

Also, people regularly get prosecuted for careless driving, even where no accident has taken place. Although it is more likely for someone to come to the attention of the Gardai when an accident occurs.

tayto lover · 08-11-2012 9:16pm

MagicSean wrote: »

In excess of 120kph

"121, 122, 124 kph or have you an exact number Garda?"
Can't really see that sticking tbh.

TheNog · 08-11-2012 9:20pm

tayto lover wrote: »

"121, 122, 124 kph or have you an exact number Garda?"
Can't really see that sticking tbh.

Does not have to be an exact speed.

tayto lover · 08-11-2012 9:21pm

TheNog wrote: »

I'm on a mobile so can't split your post above for my answer.

Observing a persons driving through a rearview mirror is definitely more difficult but it can be done.

Careless driving and dangerous driving would mainly used for traffic accidents. Remember dangerous driving includes speed so if the Garda gives evidence that the OP was driving in excess of the speed limit and he gives an estimation say between 140-160kph, the OP could be convicted and disqualified.

If anything happens I would say it will a speeding fine or summons for dangerous driving if Garda believes OP was doing those speeds.

Yes but that's back to my earlier point. Does a speeding charge not have to point to an exact number? Also would the term "Dangerous Driving" not have to be mentioned to the OP at the time as it appears "Driving without due Care" was the only thing he was told.? I always thought there was a standard caution in these matters. Maybe i'm wrong.
By the way I am anti speeding and driving dangerously and on the Garda side but I just cannot understand this one. I can't see him being convicted.

tayto lover · 08-11-2012 9:24pm

TheNog wrote: »

Does not have to be an exact speed.

O.K. I didn't know that. Thanks for replies to all.

goldie fish · 08-11-2012 9:26pm

Exceeding the speed limit is the charge.

TheNog · 08-11-2012 9:48pm

tayto lover wrote: »

Yes but that's back to my earlier point. Does a speeding charge not have to point to an exact number? Also would the term "Dangerous Driving" not have to be mentioned to the OP at the time as it appears "Driving without due Care" was the only thing he was told.? I always thought there was a standard caution in these matters. Maybe i'm wrong.
By the way I am anti speeding and driving dangerously and on the Garda side but I just cannot understand this one. I can't see him being convicted.

Again no an exact speed does not have to given in evidence. Evidence verbal or physical does need to show speed limit has been exceeded. Best evidence of course would be show exact speed.

At the end of the day what happens in the op case will be up to the guard. We will not know unless the op tells us what summons he/she gets.

My posts above are my experience of what I have done in court and I have seen in any other cases

wicklaman83 · 08-11-2012 10:30pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I don't think you know what the word proof means. If you are walking down the road with a Garda and a guy runs up to you and shoots you dead then throws the gun in a river would there be no proof of the act even though the Garda witnessed it? Witness testimony is evidence, no matter wether it is from a Garda or not, and a case can be proved by testimony alone.

They'd get the gun from the river and get the gunmans dna from it.
No comment on the waterford case???

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 10:35pm

wicklaman83 wrote: »

They'd get the gun from the river and get the gunmans dna from it.
No comment on the waterford case???

Waterford case isnt relevant. There was cctv evidence. You are just ignoring the issues raised at this stage.

wicklaman83 · 08-11-2012 10:40pm

MagicSean wrote: »

Waterford case isnt relevant. There was cctv evidence. You are just ignoring the issues raised at this stage.

But yours words. "Garda testimony is proof".

endacl · 08-11-2012 10:47pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

Yes two, but they need to clock me on a peice of equipment surely.. And by that a speed gun or cam? Fair enough if they were behind me and clocked me at a consistent speed.. ?

Not really. Speed guns just make a case more cut and dried. There were speeding offences and speeding fines before there were speed guns...

MagicSean · 08-11-2012 10:56pm

wicklaman83 wrote: »

But yours words. "Garda testimony is proof".

All witness testimony is proof. What angle are you trying to get at here?

RustyNut · 08-11-2012 11:14pm

MagicSean wrote: »

All witness testimony is proof. What angle are you trying to get at here?

Would it not be evidence rather than proof ?
An important differance I think.

Bosh · 09-11-2012 10:30am

endacl wrote: »

Not really. Speed guns just make a case more cut and dried. There were speeding offences and speeding fines before there were speed guns...

Speeding is one of the offences that requires corroboration.

In ye olden days ye olde worlde constable had a fixed known distance and a stopwatch. Time over distance.

Calibrated speedometers were in vogue for a while.

Then the newfangled radars came in replaced in latter years by the witchcraft of lasers.

There was also Vascar, with has now been superceded by Puma which is a sexy stopwatch, which is ye olde time over distance again.

In any event, for a prosecution for a specific offence of exceeding the speed limit to stand, corroborative evidence is required.

HTH

Valetta · 09-11-2012 10:42am

Conn2012 wrote: »

Between 120 -160.. When I seem d cop car..

You've admitted here that you were speeding.

Are you prepared to lie in court?

source · 09-11-2012 11:22am

It's a while since I was in the job, but are there not two charges relating to speeding? Exceeding the speed limit and driving at speed. What the op is describing would fall into the second one.

Conn2012 · 09-11-2012 1:02pm

Valetta wrote: »

You've admitted here that you were speeding.

Are you prepared to lie in court?

I gotta be honest to say my mind set is - No victim, no crime..

Lieing in court.. I haven`t thought that far ahead tbh, I honestly think it won`t go that far.. Goin to wait until the ticket / summons comes through with details and see the penalty... go from there...

If it ever does? This guy was on the way to dub transportin someone i`d say ? ?

Anyone have any idea what kind of time line of when I can expect the postman commin at me with lovely letter for me?

tayto lover · 09-11-2012 3:00pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

I gotta be honest to say my mind set is - No victim, no crime..

Lieing in court.. I haven`t thought that far ahead tbh, I honestly think it won`t go that far.. Goin to wait until the ticket / summons comes through with details and see the penalty... go from there...

If it ever does? This guy was on the way to dub transportin someone i`d say ? ?

Anyone have any idea what kind of time line of when I can expect the postman commin at me with lovely letter for me?

The 12th of Never i'd say.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-lDWKRWuxs

10-11-2012 3:13am

OP, You will find that the legislation here, 1. Dates back some 70 years and 2. Was always intended to be robust enough to empower both the Garda and courts to prosecute where a 'genuine case' exists.

The reality is that with the on-going introduction of new electronic equipment, the burden of proof on the prosecution has increased considerably. Evidence that was considered perfectly acceptable in the 1970's, would not be considered so today.

With regard to the offence of speeding - There is no issue with a member of the Garda (or indeed any other individual) providing an estimate as to the speed a vehicle was travelling at. This estimate can be based on any criteria the witness choses to use (speed required to catch up, not gaining on driver while travelling at 200kph etc.). The question is the weight that this evidence will carry. In the case of a prosecution for dangerous driving for example, the member will commonly provide an estimate of the speed of travel, however this would be in conjunction with other evidence and form part of bigger picture.

The report of the incident you provide would represent a very weak case (on any grounds) in a district court and for a number of reasons would be very unlikely to be scheduled in the first instance.

However, take the positive from the experience - The encounter has obviously struck a chord with you, and I suspect this was the original intention of the Garda who required you to stop. 160km/h is considerable speed. Most drivers (not all) do not fully appreciate the implications of this speed on the dynamics of driving or its potential implications. If nothing was achieved other than to cause you to be more aware of the speed you are travelling at - maybe not a bad thing.

Esel · 10-11-2012 3:35am

Valetta wrote: »

You've admitted here that you were speeding.

Are you prepared to lie in court?

Unless the OP decides to testify (which is generally unadvisable, afaik) he/she will not be in a position to commit perjury.

steddyeddy · 17-11-2012 6:51pm

MagicSean wrote: »

I don't think you know what the word proof means. If you are walking down the road with a Garda and a guy runs up to you and shoots you dead then throws the gun in a river would there be no proof of the act even though the Garda witnessed it? Witness testimony is evidence, no matter wether it is from a Garda or not, and a case can be proved by testimony alone.

Sean evidence is not proof. From a scientific viewpoint anyway. Although I'm not to sure whether the legal standpoint is the same.

wicklaman83 · 17-11-2012 11:53pm

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sean evidence is not proof. From a scientific viewpoint anyway. Although I'm not to sure whether the legal standpoint is the same.

He doesn't seem to know a whole lot contrary to his posts.

Potential-Monke · 20-11-2012 12:25am

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sean evidence is not proof. From a scientific viewpoint anyway. Although I'm not to sure whether the legal standpoint is the same.

It's beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't have to be proven 100% true, but as long as it is found beyond reasonable doubt it's proof.

Conn2012 · 29-12-2012 5:26pm

Weeks later no fine or anything.. happy out !

tayto lover · 29-12-2012 5:39pm

Conn2012 wrote: »

Weeks later no fine or anything.. happy out !

Just as I suspected.

29-12-2012 5:48pm

This thread has given me a good old read, so many legal experts floating around.

I never understood why the cop wouldnt just say he was doing 120 and you caught up to him, rather than him saying he was deliberately breaking the speed limit to catch you out.

In any case, nothing would surprise me based on what Ive seen since living in Ireland.

AlekSmart · 30-12-2012 8:10pm

Basil3 wrote: »

This thread has given me a good old read, so many legal experts floating around.

I never understood why the cop wouldnt just say he was doing 120 and you caught up to him, rather than him saying he was deliberately breaking the speed limit to catch you out.

In any case, nothing would surprise me based on what Ive seen since living in Ireland.

I can well imagine your eyebrow line having raised well beyond the safety margin,Basil.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/garda-quashed-points-for-10-relatives-3338799.html

What I found particularly interesting,in the context of the OP's little contretemp with the Member,was this.....

Senior gardai say that in many instances of the reported quashing of fixed-charge motoring offences there have been suspicions of over- zealous behaviour, sometimes bordering on entrapment, by the traffic corps.

In one case, a number of penalty tickets were cancelled after it was claimed gardai in an unmarked car had driven at 20 miles per hour in a traffic lane, causing several impatient motorists to move into a bus lane and overtake on the left.

The frequent setting up of 'traps', particularly in slip-roads off motorways and other main roads, is also a cause of concern among local gardai, who have to deal with complaints by irate motorists.

This particular Garda "Whistleblower" has opened a far larger can of worms than he/she may have intended,and not all of it will have the results he/she may have hoped for either.

From my reading of Conn2012's OP,it appears yet another brush with a member behaving in a less than professional manner.

Conn2012 · 04-08-2017 9:24pm

AlekSmart wrote: »

I can well imagine your eyebrow line having raised well beyond the safety margin,Basil.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/garda-quashed-points-for-10-relatives-3338799.html

What I found particularly interesting,in the context of the OP's little contretemp with the Member,was this.....

This particular Garda "Whistleblower" has opened a far larger can of worms than he/she may have intended,and not all of it will have the results he/she may have hoped for either.

From my reading of Conn2012's OP,it appears yet another brush with a member behaving in a less than professional manner.

Update: Never heard anything..

Speeding and Cowboy Cop

Comments