Speeding and Cowboy Cop

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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 wrote: »

Weeks later no fine or anything.. happy out !

Just as I suspected.

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.