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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Undriveable car, case dismissed

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Aye, I suppose she deserves credit
    She won for her client

    Fair enough


  • Options
    #63
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    kbannon wrote: »
    She did her job and did it well. You can't fault her for using the law.
    Maybe ask why a case was taken when this outcome was likely. Why wasn't the driver charged for something else like dangerous driving?

    Again no proof of driving, or that it was dangerous. If that was the case every guy who ended up in a ditch would be guilty of dangerous driving.


  • Options
    #64
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    Intention to drive

    Why then do I read in the forum of people getting convicted when all they did was have a few drinks, use your key to put on the heater and sleep it off in the car.
    I've done this, guess I was lucky I did it somewhere quiet

    But maybe the garda strolls along, taps on the window and you end up in district court

    Intention to drive? If you are sleeping in the car you have no intention to drive but the court won't accept that.

    Smash your car into a ditch, garda comes along and it's the opposite, you can win your court case


  • Options
    #65
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    mikemac1 wrote: »
    Intention to drive

    Why then do I read in the forum of people getting convicted when all they did was have a few drinks, use your key to put on the heater and sleep it off in the car.
    I've done this, guess I was lucky I did it somewhere quiet

    But maybe the garda strolls along, taps on the window and you end up in district court

    Intention to drive? If you are sleeping in the car you have no intention to drive but the court won't accept that.

    Smash your car into a ditch, garda comes along and it's the opposite, you can win your court case

    There is case law on that very issue, and because the guys usually say to the AGS I was going to drive in a few hours there is your future intention. Once in charge is shown its usually an issue for the accused to prove he did not have a intention. But in this case AGS did it for him.


  • Options
    #66
    carbon nanotube
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 994 ✭✭✭carbon nanotube


    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.


    thats retarded, Irelands courts are gas.

    so lets get this straight. based on aforementioned stoner in louth.

    a person hammered with booze, smacks into a MPV carrying 4 kids and a parent. killing them all.

    the guys car so mangled its no longer a 'mechanically bla bla bla'

    verdict.


    case dismissed.

    :rolleyes:

    note to self, in future if you ever happen to have a couple in Ireland bring a sledge hammer in the boot just in case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    colm_mcm
    Registered Users Posts: 73,382 ✭✭✭✭colm_mcm


    I remember a similar case in cork around 15 years ago, lady was caught drunk driving coming down a hill, car was unroadworthy, it was argued that the car wasn't mechanically propelled at the time of being caught and she got off.


  • Options
    #68
    franksm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭franksm


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

    Then there's something not right about the law.

    I though the judge was supposed to ensure the correct 'outcome' and not just follow the letter of the law like a computer.

    Must be really frustrating to be a victim of crime, or vicitim of a drunk driver, or indeed to be a police officer and have to put up with this at the end of your hard graft.


  • Options
    #69
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    franksm wrote: »
    Then there's something not right about the law.

    I though the judge was supposed to ensure the correct 'outcome' and not just follow the letter of the law like a computer.

    Must be really frustrating to be a victim of crime, or vicitim of a drunk driver, or indeed to be a police officer and have to put up with this at the end of your hard graft.

    So you think a judge should find a person guilty of a crime even if the evidence does not support such a conviction.


  • Options
    #70
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    carbon nanotube wrote: »
    thats retarded, Irelands courts are gas.

    so lets get this straight. based on aforementioned stoner in louth.

    a person hammered with booze, smacks into a MPV carrying 4 kids and a parent. killing them all.

    the guys car so mangled its no longer a 'mechanically bla bla bla'

    verdict.


    case dismissed.

    :rolleyes:

    note to self, in future if you ever happen to have a couple in Ireland bring a sledge hammer in the boot just in case.

    In a prosecution for dangerous driving causing death, as you outlined above the person would more than likely be convicted. It is a different charge to drink driving which is a very technical offence. There is not enough space to go into the differences. But I can assure you in a prosecution for dangerous driving causing death the guy would more than likely be convicted.


  • Options
    #71
    Marlow
    Registered Users Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Barr wrote: »
    Would the Gards not have taken a statement from the accused after the incident. It seems crazy he never had to give an explanation.

    A statement while the person accused is drunk can not be taken as valid. A statement given after you sober up, would have been taken into account though. "I have no clear recollection of that" comes to mind.
    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Did they get a proper qualified opinion that the car wasnt drivable or just the gards opinion? Outside of "jesus you wouldnt be able to legally drive that yoke in the state its in" what gives the Gards opinion any weight?

    How bad can it have been if it was still running?

    The garda's job in the case of an accident is to be able to determine what happened and they're also qualified to judge, if the car is drivable or not.

    How would they otherwise judge if your car is roadworthy or not.

    If they deemed the car not being able to move on it's own, then that is considered a professional assessment. It could be poor judgement, but it's still considered a professional assessment by the law, as that's part of the job of a Garda.

    Also, what has to be considered is, that the person crashing the car could have been taken drink "after" he crashed. A bottle in the car would be enough to manifest that claim.

    As there is no evidence to what state the person driving was before and during the crash, the only evidence is what the accused admits to or what can be judged from the crash scene.

    In this case: "The accused was in a non-drivable car (hence no intend to drive) in a drunken condition". Due to lack of witnesses, everything else is assumption and not admissable in court.

    It's the same, if lets say the garda follow up on a dangerous driving/speeding offense, come to your home and find you with a bottle in the hand. Even if you were drunk at the time of the offense, they could not bring you to court for drunk driving. Only for the witnessed charges.

    /M


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Marlow wrote: »

    The garda's job in the case of an accident is to be able to determine what happened and they're also qualified to judge, if the car is drivable or not.

    How would they otherwise judge if your car is roadworthy or not.

    If the deemed the car not being able to move on it's own, then that is considered a professional assessment. It could be poor judgement, but it's still considered a professional assessment by the law, as that's part of the job of a Garda.

    I would argue that there should be somethign more concrete than a Gards judgement in a case that is potentially so very serious.

    Plenty of Gards have no interest in cars whatsoever, couldnt tell one end from the other and dont even drive themselves. How they could give an assesment on the stae of roadworthyness of a car is suspect at best.

    Plenty of Gards would probably deem a Xantia with a missing wheel to be undrivable..........


  • Options
    #73
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    I would argue that there should be somethign more concrete than a Gards judgement in a case that is potentially so very serious.

    Plenty of Gards have no interest in cars whatsoever, couldnt tell one end from the other and dont even drive themselves. How they could give an assesment on the stae of roadworthyness of a car is suspect at best.

    Plenty of Gards would probably deem a Xantia with a missing wheel to be undrivable..........

    Who takes the prosecution for drink driving? It's the Garda. Who runs the case? It's the Garda. Who decides on the evidence to be presented? It's the Garda. Who gives evidence of what happened at the scene? Anyone there, in this case the Garda.

    We do not have an inquisitorial system the judge can only make his or her decision on the information presented to him or her, if not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the the person is guilty of the offence charged, he or she can not find the person guilty.


  • Options
    #74
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Who takes the prosecution for drink driving? It's the Garda. Who runs the case? It's the Garda. Who decides on the evidence to be presented? It's the Garda. Who gives evidence of what happened at the scene? Anyone there, in this case the Garda.
    .

    All things they are trained in presumably? They are not mechanics though.


  • Options
    #75
    mb1725
    Registered Users Posts: 1,381 ✭✭✭mb1725


    The defendant was in court previously for another drink related incident:
    http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/refused-to-pay-fare-2204207.html


  • Options
    #76
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    All things they are trained in presumably? They are not mechanics though.

    But they are considered experts in giving certain evidence, only an expert can give evidence of his or her opinion. The Garda said the car was towed because it was not able to be driven once the judge heard that he had to go with the accused.


  • Options
    #77
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    mb1725 wrote: »
    The defendant was in court previously for another drink related incident:
    http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/refused-to-pay-fare-2204207.html

    Seems he likes to fall asleep in cars with a bit of drink in him. Just shows he took a taxi the other time.


  • Options
    #78
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    But they are considered experts in giving certain evidence, only an expert can give evidence of his or her opinion.
    Thats my point. She may be the most expert peron in the world at giving evidence base don her opinion. It means **** all if her opinion is wrong.

    We dont know if that Garda is even capable of putting fuel in a car, nevermind determining if its driveable.


  • Options
    #79
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Seems he likes to fall asleep in cars with a bit of drink in him. Just shows he took a taxi the other time.

    Maybe someone stole his car, crashed it and ran off. HE then wanders by on his way home from the pub, says "hey, my car" and jumps in for a sleep.:)


  • Options
    #80
    Marlow
    Registered Users Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Thats my point. She may be the most expert peron in the world at giving evidence base don her opinion. It means **** all if her opinion is wrong.

    We dont know if that Garda is even capable of putting fuel in a car, nevermind determining if its driveable.

    Might very well be, but that's how the garda and the law work in this and many other countries. If you don't like it, then you might want to go into politics or law and change to something better. Until then, that's the way it functions.

    The judgement is pretty clear cut based on what laws we have and what the evidence was. There's no fault in the judgement of the judge based on the evidence and statements given.

    /M


  • Options
    #81
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Thats my point. She may be the most expert peron in the world at giving evidence base don her opinion. It means **** all if her opinion is wrong.

    We dont know if that Garda is even capable of putting fuel in a car, nevermind determining if its driveable.

    You are exactly right, but the judge must decide the case on what's in front of him, if the evidence from the state says the guy is innocent then what can the judge do. He can not and should not say I'm ignoring all the evidence and going with my hunch.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    franksm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭franksm


    Thread has gone to pot, IMHO.

    The facts reported are this:

    Garda Clarke attended the scene and saw the vehicle had impacted with a telegraph poll [sic] just off the right hand lane. 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. His speech was slurred and there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Intoxiliser test gave a reading of 84mg/100ml of breath.
    Vehicle was removed from the scene by a recovery company as it was undriveable. It had been severely impacted by the accident.

    As the letter of the law goes, the charge was that the defendant was drunk in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

    Judgement was that "If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't a vehicle".

    Therefore a shockingly useless judgment in terms of reasons why the drink-drive laws are in place in the first place, and setting an awful precadent for future such cases.

    I hate to think how Shaun Kelly might have got off being charged for killing 8 people in the 2010 Inishowen crash. His vehicle was a cube at the end of his unfortunate deed.

    The law is an ass.


  • Options
    #83
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    franksm wrote: »
    Thread has gone to pot, IMHO.

    The facts reported are this:

    Garda Clarke attended the scene and saw the vehicle had impacted with a telegraph poll [sic] just off the right hand lane. 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. His speech was slurred and there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Intoxiliser test gave a reading of 84mg/100ml of breath.
    Vehicle was removed from the scene by a recovery company as it was undriveable. It had been severely impacted by the accident.

    As the letter of the law goes, the charge was that the defendant was drunk in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

    Judgement was that "If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't a vehicle".

    Therefore a shockingly useless judgment in terms of reasons why the drink-drive laws are in place in the first place, and setting an awful precadent for future such cases.

    I hate to think how Shaun Kelly might have got off being charged for killing 8 people in the 2010 Inishowen crash. His vehicle was a cube at the end of his unfortunate deed.

    The law is an ass.


    The charge is drunk in charge WITH THE INTENTION TO DRIVE as evidence before court was car was incapable of driving could be no intention. Such a defence would not work in the less technical charge of dangerous driving causing death. Really not enough space to go into the explanation why.


  • Options
    #84
    Marlow
    Registered Users Posts: 14,555 ✭✭✭✭Marlow


    franksm wrote: »
    As the letter of the law goes, the charge was that the defendant was drunk in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

    Judgement was that "If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't a vehicle".

    Incorrect.

    The defendant was charged with the intend of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, as there was no witnesses, that he had been driving it.

    As it wasn't drivable, it isn't a mechanically propelled vehicle anymore, so there can not be any intend.

    Case dismissed.

    /M


  • Options
    #85
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    Marlow wrote: »
    Incorrect.

    The defendant was charged with the intend of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, as there was no witnesses, that he had been driving it.

    As it wasn't drivable, it isn't a mechanically propelled vehicle anymore, so there can not be any intend.

    Case dismissed.

    /M

    This is it.

    No debate. It's the case. It's what happened and there's a very happy Barrister out there right now :)


  • Options
    #86
    franksm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,488 ✭✭✭franksm


    Eh ? Where is mention of 'intention' ?

    http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/undriveable-car-sees-case-dismissed-3141948.html

    "<snip> (25), Chapel Road, Clogherhead, was charged with being drunk in charge of an MPV at the Chord Road on September 23 last."

    LOL - are you guys making stuff up to win the argument ?

    Here's the complete text of the article that this thread is based on:

    A MAN who was almost three times over the drink driving limit when he crashed his car into a telegraph pole had the case against him dismissed because the car was so badly damaged it could no longer be considered a mechanically propelled vehicle.

    <snip> (25), Chapel Road, Clogherhead, was charged with being drunk in charge of an MPV at the Chord Road on September 23 last.

    Garda Ursula Clarke told the court gardaí had received a report of a single vehicle collision on the Chord Road at 6.05 a.m. on the date in question. She attended the scene and saw the vehicle had impacted with a telegraph poll just off the right hand lane.

    She 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.

    Garda Clarke said <snip>'s speech was slurred and there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. The defendant was brought to Drogheda Garda Station where a subsequent intoxiliser test gave a reading of 84mg/100ml of breath.

    She said the vehicle was removed from the scene by a recovery company as it was undriveable. It had been severely impacted by the accident, she said.

    Defence barrister Irene Sands said a question arose as to whether the vehicle was an MPV because it was so badly damaged. She said the garda had given clear evidence that the car was not driveable and by law, if this was the case, then it could not be considered a mechanically propelled vehicle since it was not capable of being mechanically propelled because of the amount of damage.

    Inspector Brendan Cadden said the evidence given was that the motor was running which meant it was still mechanically propelled. 'A severe impact doesn't mean it isn't driveable, it is mechanically propelled if the engine is still running,' he said.

    However, Ms. Sands said the garda had twice agreed that the vehicle had not be driveable following the accident.

    Agreeing, Judge Flann Brennan said: 'If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't an MPV, that is the law,' before dismissing the case.


  • Options
    #87
    MugMugs
    Registered Users Posts: 17,875 ✭✭✭✭MugMugs


    He was being done from when the Garda arrived at the scene and saw the engine running and him pissed. You could construe it as intent or you could just say that the key was in the ignition and that the engine was running.


  • Options
    #88
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    franksm wrote: »
    Eh ? Where is mention of 'intention' ?

    http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/undriveable-car-sees-case-dismissed-3141948.html

    "<snip> (25), Chapel Road, Clogherhead, was charged with being drunk in charge of an MPV at the Chord Road on September 23 last."

    LOL - are you guys making stuff up to win the argument ?

    Here's the complete text of the article that this thread is based on:

    A MAN who was almost three times over the drink driving limit when he crashed his car into a telegraph pole had the case against him dismissed because the car was so badly damaged it could no longer be considered a mechanically propelled vehicle.

    <snip> (25), Chapel Road, Clogherhead, was charged with being drunk in charge of an MPV at the Chord Road on September 23 last.

    Garda Ursula Clarke told the court gardaí had received a report of a single vehicle collision on the Chord Road at 6.05 a.m. on the date in question. She attended the scene and saw the vehicle had impacted with a telegraph poll just off the right hand lane.

    She 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.

    Garda Clarke said <snip>'s speech was slurred and there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. The defendant was brought to Drogheda Garda Station where a subsequent intoxiliser test gave a reading of 84mg/100ml of breath.

    She said the vehicle was removed from the scene by a recovery company as it was undriveable. It had been severely impacted by the accident, she said.

    Defence barrister Irene Sands said a question arose as to whether the vehicle was an MPV because it was so badly damaged. She said the garda had given clear evidence that the car was not driveable and by law, if this was the case, then it could not be considered a mechanically propelled vehicle since it was not capable of being mechanically propelled because of the amount of damage.

    Inspector Brendan Cadden said the evidence given was that the motor was running which meant it was still mechanically propelled. 'A severe impact doesn't mean it isn't driveable, it is mechanically propelled if the engine is still running,' he said.

    However, Ms. Sands said the garda had twice agreed that the vehicle had not be driveable following the accident.

    Agreeing, Judge Flann Brennan said: 'If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't an MPV, that is the law,' before dismissing the case.


    Maybe we took the issue from the law just maybe the relevant legislation is more correct than a newspaper article just maybe.


    5.— (1) A person commits an offence if, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place with intent to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle (but not driving or attempting to drive it), he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.


  • Options
    #89
    jluv
    Registered Users Posts: 3,718 ✭✭✭jluv


    One thing is for sure..We should all be scared when this guy goes out for a few drinks.He lucked out this time but doesn't take away from what could have happened.My original response was "No way can this happen" but after reading the responses I think the judge had no choice and I'm sure he was not exactly happy at letting him off..


  • Options
    #90
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    jluv wrote: »
    One thing is for sure..We should all be scared when this guy goes out for a few drinks.He lucked out this time but doesn't take away from what could have happened.My original response was "No way can this happen" but after reading the responses I think the judge had no choice and I'm sure he was not exactly happy at letting him off..

    I can assure you DJ usually do not like leaving guys off.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    dr.fuzzenstein
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 16,635 ✭✭✭✭dr.fuzzenstein


    What a classy guy.
    Now he should sue for wrongful arrest and the ruination of his good name. Hope he gets a million.:rolleyes:


Advertisement