Penalty Points - Court appearance

totallybaz

ok, basically my question is:

You are caught speeding and the garda stops you. You ask to see the readout on the gun and he shows you, but you ask him how he can prove to you that it was your car he clocked and not someone else as there is no time stamp on the handheld speed camera. He says "Sure, if you want to fight it you will be summonsed" etc. etc. blah blah blah

Now it says that there's 2 Penalty Points issued for speeding but it could be increased to four if you go to court and lose.

Is this not unconstitutional? I mean being punished for challenging seems harsh, as I thought it was every man's constitutional right to argue his case in court to defend his good name!???

Any comments, answers or thoughts welcome. Sorry if it's confusing.

Thirdfox

I thought this is similar to plea bargaining e.g. plea guilty for rape -> less harsh sentence (no traumatic ordeal of cross examinination by defence etc.)

By admitting you're guilt you save time and money - the state rewards you by giving you a lesser punishment (I think you're thinking the opposite way i.e. by appealing the state is giving you a harsher punishment ). Try to think from the other direction - you're rewarded for saving taxpayer's money by getting only 2 points and not 4 i.e. the standard punishment is 4 but reduced to 2 if you admit guilt.

Of course the theory of plea bargaining can be debated too... but that would mean if you don't appeal you get 4 points, if you appeal and lose you'd still get 4 points - awful waste of time/money for a majority of cases.

seamus

^^
What Thirdfox says is pretty much the rationale behind it. If you accept that you were speeding, you pay the fixed penalty and receive two points. If you know you weren't speeding, then you challenge it in court.

In theory a driver should now whether he was or wasn't speeding. Black and white. To use an extreme example, you wouldn't be unsure of your guilt if you were charged with murder, so why should admission/denial of guilt be so different here?

besty

I hope this whole scenario is just speculation totallybaz

Skyuser

Ya I was shocked when Gay Byrne said on Late Show that if you exercise your rights and go to court you will get more points and a bigger fine if[when] you lose. Thats just mad.

Litcagral

The standard penalty is four points. If you accept it on the spot, you get a 'discount'. You have a right to go to court but you are not penalised for doing so.

Thirdfox

Skyuser wrote:

Ya I was shocked when Gay Byrne said on Late Show that if you exercise your rights and go to court you will get more points and a bigger fine if[when] you lose. Thats just mad.

People who don't read the responses to posts makes baby Jesus cry

Wrong viewpoint... look at my post (no.2) original penalty = 4 points, reduced if you admit guilt.

Besty, doesn't seem like he's going to pursue a constitutional challenge for penalty points... then again - I'm not offering legal advice as per my signature disclaimer (just in case!)

totallybaz

besty wrote:

I hope this whole scenario is just speculation totallybaz

Jaysus no! it's totally hypothetical. Just fighting the machine. Thanks for the replies everyone.

Our man in Havana

I am persuing a challenge when/if they ever catch me.

vector

Bond-007 wrote:

I am persuing a challenge when/if they ever catch me.

nice idea, but if the forces of law enforcement have documentary evidence of the offence being committed, what can you counter that with?

Our man in Havana

vector wrote:

nice idea, but if the forces of law enforcement have documentary evidence of the offence being committed, what can you counter that with?

My views on this are well documented in this fourm.

dermot_sheehan

While a 4 point original offence with a 2 point discount may sound like semantics, I can see major problems if this was declared unconstitutional. It's the same as the state accepting a guilty plea for manslaughter instead of pressing for a prosecution for murder. A discount is standard for a guilty plea, admission of guilty being the first step on the road to criminal rehabilitation, this merely codifies it in statute.

cast_iron

gabhain7 wrote:

It's the same as the state accepting a guilty plea for manslaughter instead of pressing for a prosecution for murder.

I disagree - here you describe 2 different offences. In the case of penalty points it's the same offence.
It IS akin to offering a plea bargain - like a recommendation of a lesser sentence - if pleading guilty.

Eru

Litcagral wrote:

The standard penalty is four points. If you accept it on the spot, you get a 'discount'. You have a right to go to court but you are not penalised for doing so.

Exactly. One of McDowells most loved thing is too get matters dealt with in the least time and expence and thats why he is so keen on on the spot fines for so many offences.

There is even a smilar (but not the same allowance) under the Terrorism Act 2005 whereas accepting the money was for terrorism and forfeiting it you can avoid a charge.