RTA 1961 assumption that RO is the driver

Mr Burns

Has it ever been sucessfully challenged in any court in Ireland?

Eg. RO owns a car and goes to the USA for 1 month on holidays. He leaves the car at home where his 3 sons have use of said car and are fully insured to use it.

RO arrives home and finds a notice of alleged speeding on the doormat accusing him of speeding whilst he was away on hols.

None of the kids will own up to speeding. Now the RTA assumes he the RO was driving. The RO can prove that he was not in the state let alone driving. He asks to see the photo which is of the rear of the car which you cannot tell who was driving from.

What would the likely outcome of such a case?

Eru

Mr Burns wrote:

None of the kids will own up to speeding. Now the RTA assumes he the RO was driving. The RO can prove that he was not in the state let alone driving. He asks to see the photo which is of the rear of the car which you cannot tell who was driving from.

If he did not give strict permission on that day and they deny driving the vehicle then it must have been stolen, yes???? And as a result he must report it stolen and an investigation carried out. Thus leaving the possibility of charges against 1 of his children.

rondeco

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

If he did not give strict permission on that day and they deny driving the vehicle then it must have been stolen, yes???? And as a result he must report it stolen and an investigation carried out. Thus leaving the possibility of charges against 1 of his children.

Crappola. He is the one who is charged with an offence and he can prove that he wasn't driving it but cannot prove who was. He is obliged by law to state who was driving if he wasn't but he can't and therefore can be prosecuted for this offence. He can then defend this offence by having his kids investigated for the taking of the car.

hargo

There is no assumption that the RO is the driver but the RO must say who was driving, simple.

Our man in Havana

But if the RO cannot name someone under sect 107 then they will prosecute him for the original speeding and not under sect 107 for failing to name.

Eru

rondeco wrote:

Crappola. He is the one who is charged with an offence and he can prove that he wasn't driving it but cannot prove who was. He is obliged by law to state who was driving if he wasn't but he can't and therefore can be prosecuted for this offence. He can then defend this offence by having his kids investigated for the taking of the car.

Listen mate, if the demand is made and he denies knowing who was driving then he cannot have given permission for the vehicle to be driven. If the people insured and authorised to drive deny driving there is no alternative but theft.

Again I have seen this in practice.

mountainyman

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Again I have seen this in practice.

That's playing hardball baby. I won't **** with THAT cop.
MM

Eru

mountainyman wrote:

That's playing hardball baby. I won't **** with THAT cop.
MM

The guy I saw do it was stationed in a rural town. They have the time to go after every single person in full and prosecute small crime. Im wayyyyyyy to busy to be going after things like this.

Note: Busy in work, Im obviously bored at home or I wouldnt be on this site.

rondeco

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Listen mate, if the demand is made and he denies knowing who was driving then he cannot have given permission for the vehicle to be driven. If the people insured and authorised to drive deny driving there is no alternative but theft.

Again I have seen this in practice.

First up, 'listen mate'? Cut that crap out. It makes you look like you're forcing your opinion on me.

Second. Permission is implied and has been succesfully argued before by naming someone on your insurance policy. The last statement is correct and is what I have pointed out in my own submission.

Eru

rondeco wrote:

First up, 'listen mate'? Cut that crap out. It makes you look like you're forcing your opinion on me.

Second. Permission is implied and has been succesfully argued before by naming someone on your insurance policy. The last statement is correct and is what I have pointed out in my own submission.

To start with your the one that used the word 'crapolla' and sated my opinion is completely wrong. Do you think this defence has never been thought of before by the many, many defence barristers and solicitors out there?

Your claiming that the kids deny driving the car. therefore no insured person is owning up to driving the vehicle, this allows for a UT investigation.

If he refuses to make a complaint of theft then his case is shows for what it is, bull.

I know what you saying and yes it applies but I am continuing on from that point to a logical conclusion. Cases are fought by the prosecution, we dont just roll into court, accept any old excuse and go home.

jhegarty

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Listen mate, if the demand is made and he denies knowing who was driving then he cannot have given permission for the vehicle to be driven. If the people insured and authorised to drive deny driving there is no alternative but theft.

Again I have seen this in practice.

how about if they used their right to silence rather than denying been the driver?

EducatedGuess

I hate to inform Rondeco that Karlitoway is completely right. In theory the failure to name a nominated driver and report the car to be stolen sounds good, but i think it is highly unlikely that the car was stolen, and then returned to the rightful owner after a night of speeding. If the registered owner fails to nominate a driver, then it passes back to him.

Eru

jhegarty wrote:

how about if they used their right to silence rather than denying been the driver?

This isn't America. No taking the fifth if you please.

You have the right to not self incriminate however in the absense of any comments from you you will just be prosecuted based on the evidence to hand such as your the owner and you have no reasonable excuse.

Mr Burns

At the same time you can decline to make any statement to the Gardai and you cannot be forced to make any statement.

BTW, do statements have to written on Garda stationary or can a person write one themselves on their own paper and give to the Gardai as their statement?

Eru

Mr Burns wrote:

BTW, do statements have to written on Garda stationary or can a person write one themselves on their own paper and give to the Gardai as their statement?

The Gardai must write them in their own hand, usually but not always on official statement paper and then signed by the Garda and yourself. the Garda will then type it up to avoid spelling mistakes and confusion with handwriting.

On some occasions your own would be accepted by the Gardai but couldnt be used as evidence.

Trojan911

Mr Burns wrote:

BTW, do statements have to written on Garda stationary or can a person write one themselves on their own paper and give to the Gardai as their statement?

Mr Burns,

Yes you can do that, one can compile his/her statement take it to the Garda station and present it to the desk officer. The desk officer will read it and then write in the declaration on the top and you both sign it on the bottom. It is called your "original notes".

TJ911...

Trojan911

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

On some occasions your own would be accepted by the Gardai but couldnt be used as evidence.

I hope not, as I have lodged a recent traffic offence complaint and want it fully explored with a view to prosecution...


TJ911...

Eru

Trojan911 wrote:

Mr Burns,

Yes you can do that, one can compile his/her statement take it to the Garda station and present it to the desk officer. The desk officer will read it and then write in the declaration on the top and you both sign it on the bottom. It is called your "original notes".

TJ911...

Trojan911, if your not a bloody Garda and you dont know what your talking about please, please dont answer. You are very much wrong. And whats a 'desk officer'? And how is it legal to insert a caution or declaration AFTER the statement is written? In fact why disagree with a serving Garda anyway? :rolleyes:

Trojan911 wrote:

I hope not, as I have lodged a recent traffic offence complaint and want it fully explored with a view to prosecution...

TJ911...

I fail to see your point. If you walked into a station and put your amateur lawyer hat on and made a tit of yourself then thats your fault not mine. When you make a complaint to Gardai it is even more important that the Gardai take the statement as it is the sole reason for an investigation and we can be questioned on it. I bet you would defend yourself as well wouldn't you?

Trojan911

Trojan911, if your not a bloody Garda and you dont know what your talking about please, please dont answer.

No, I am not a bloody Garda, I am a member of the public who recently lodged a complaint against another driver for an manoeuvre that nearly forced me off the road.


You are very much wrong. And whats a 'desk officer'? And how is it legal to insert a caution or declaration AFTER the statement is written?

I typed out what happened shortly after the incident on an A4 sheet of paper. I went to my local Garda Station and spoke with the desk officer, a person one normally meets when they walk into a Garda Station.
She read the statement I had typed out, said "This will do fine", wrote in the declaration on the top signed the bottom and invited me to also sign the bottom. I was expecting her to write out a statement. I typed out the facts to use as an aide memoir to assist me when doing the statement.

So, if you are saying that she acted incorrectly, as I specifically said I would be willing to attend court, then I will need your name, rank, shoulder no: and station you are attached to as I will pop back down and challenge her on your claim here. If you would kindly PM your details.

I fail to see your point. If you walked into a station and put your amateur lawyer hat on and made a tit of yourself then thats your fault not mine.

Your attitude sucks don't automatically assume, as stated above , I am a member of the public looking to lodge a complaint against another driver, something I am entitled to do. So I approach our law enforcement agency and expect to be treated correctly.

In fact why disagree with a serving Garda anyway? :rolleyes:

Because they are not always right.......


TJ911....

Eru

Ok wannabee, whatever. Pm me your name, address, phone nuimber, DOB and employer and I will call you with my details.

YOu are wrong, its simple. You answered a question concerning tyaking a statement and you are wrong. I had already given the correct answer. Now answer this, why would you asnwer a question about Garda proceedures when you have no knowledge on the subject and a serving Garda has already given a completely different answer?

Trojan911

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Ok wannabee, whatever. Pm me your name, address, phone nuimber, DOB and employer and I will call you with my details.

YOu are wrong, its simple. You answered a question concerning tyaking a statement and you are wrong. I had already given the correct answer. Now answer this, why would you asnwer a question about Garda proceedures when you have no knowledge on the subject and a serving Garda has already given a completely different answer?

You do not have any need for my personal dets, besides, how do I know you are a current serving Garda and not some failed cop with a chip on his shoulder.

You pointed out something in my post which you say is incorrect. A serving Garda dealt with my Road Traffic complaint the way I have described it in my post, you say it cant be done, I say this is what she did so, who is wrong, I will contact her with your claim and we can sort it out but I will need your dets as requested as know doubt she will wish to contact you. You are going to standby your claim are you not...?

TJ911...

Eru

Trojan911 wrote:

You do not have any need for my personal dets, besides, how do I know you are a current serving Garda and not some failed cop with a chip on his shoulder.

You pointed out something in my post which you say is incorrect. A serving Garda dealt with my Road Traffic complaint the way I have described it in my post, you say it cant be done, I say this is what she did so, who is wrong, I will contact her with your claim and we can sort it out but I will need your dets as requested as know doubt she will wish to contact you. You are going to standby your claim are you not...?

TJ911...

Oh so I should provide you with my professional details even though I am currently off-duty but you will not provide the same?

How about you provide your details and the Gardas shoulder number and I will contact that person direct?

Trojan911

Karlitosway1978 wrote:

Oh so I should provide you with my professional details even though I am currently off-duty but you will not provide the same?

How about you provide your details and the Gardas shoulder number and I will contact that person direct?

I take it then you are not prepared to stand by your claim.......

TJ911...