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
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    gk5000
    Registered Users Posts: 850 ✭✭✭gk5000


    franksm wrote: »
    ....

    The law is an ass.

    It's more that the legal profession make an ass of the law to line their own pockets at our expense.

    Judges are ex-barristers and continue to look after their own.


  • Options
    #93
    bladespin
    Registered Users Posts: 7,334 ✭✭✭bladespin


    gk5000 wrote: »
    It's more that the legal profession make an ass of the law to line their own pockets at our expense.

    Judges are ex-barristers and continue to look after their own.

    No, it's more the laws are hastily and carelessly prepared, rushed through to quiet the masses and then taken apart by professionals doing what they're paid to do.


  • Options
    #94
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Road Traffic Act, 1961
    3. Interpretation

    [“(2) Where a vehicle, which, apart from this subsection, would be a mechanically propelled vehicle, stands so substantially disabled (either through collision, breakdown or the removal of the engine or other such vital part) as to be no longer capable of being propelled mechanically, it shall be regarded—
    (a) for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2010, if it is disabled through collision, as continuing to be a mechanically propelled vehicle, and
    (b) for all other purposes of this Act as not being a mechanically propelled vehicle.”]

    The prosecutor should be prepared properly before going into court. The question of the crashed vehicle could have been dealt with under the Section above.


  • Options
    #95
    Reg'stoy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    Once again the duplicity of the posters on this particular forum needs to be pointed out. There are loads of a nod and a wink threads here, but God forbid someone should be seen to get away with something they!!! disagree with.

    The guy got <snip> because his counsel (for which he paid for) used a point of law (rightly or wrongly) which was available. I highlight the what!! as he has been found guilty of nothing because he choose (more than likely under excellent advice) to question a charge as is his/her entitlement under the law.

    We can't really advocate, that when available one should question where possible a charge; without accepting that on occasion, people will succeed with a challenge we disagree with.

    Before I'm accused of allowing someone to get away with 'drink driving', I am simply saying that if we want a system of law where we as citizens are able to challenge said laws; we have to accept that on occasion a challenge will be made (and succeed) that we don't necessarily like.


  • Options
    #96
    Armin_Tamzarian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,833 ✭✭✭✭Armin_Tamzarian


    Reg'stoy wrote: »
    Once again the duplicity of the posters on this particular forum needs to be pointed out. There are loads of a nod and a wink threads here, but God forbid someone should be seen to get away with something they!!! disagree with.

    The guy got <snip> because his counsel (for which he paid for) used a point of law (rightly or wrongly) which was available. I highlight the what!! as he has been found guilty of nothing because he choose (more than likely under excellent advice) to question a charge as is his/her entitlement under the law.

    We can't really advocate, that when available one should question where possible a charge; without accepting that on occasion, people will succeed with a challenge we disagree with.

    Before I'm accused of allowing someone to get away with 'drink driving', I am simply saying that if we want a system of law where we as citizens are able to challenge said laws; we have to accept that on occasion a challenge will be made (and succeed) that we don't necessarily like.

    I think the problem is that the person in question was <snip> and got off on a technicality.
    They were not some innocent party who was wrongfully accused.
    If I was in the defendant's position I would do the same thing and try to get off, that doesn't make it right.
    Let's see how popular this ruling becomes if the same guy does this again and ploughs into some innocent pedestrian next time.
    If Milk&Honey's post is accurate then it is the Garda / DPP who were at fault in this case.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement