Legality of Garda "Trafficwatch" scheme

BrianD3

Don't know if this has been discussed here before but here goes. I have been reading a few posts on boards.ie where posters say they've been reporting other road users to the Garda traffic watch scheme for alleged dangerous driving, road traffic offences etc. According to these posters
-they are asked to give statements
-the Gardai can issue tickets based on the statements
-the person who reports the alleged incident can be asked do they want the offender cautioned or brought to court

Now I'm not well up on legal matters but if the above is true isn't traffic watch on dubious ground? I'd be interested to know has anyone ever been fined/convicted based on a statement from a member of the public. I mean what qualification and training does your average Joe Public have to determine what is and isn't a road traffic offence? What if he's mistaken? What if he's prejudiced for whatever reason? How do we know he's objective or hasn't exaggerated something? What if the other party denies it? What evidence is there?

I am all for improving road safety but this scheme is surely wide open to being abused by "busybodies" who if they weren't calling traffic watch would be making spurious complaints to some other government agency/department.

CLADA

Its the same as reporting any offence to the guards. Joe public doesn't decide what is or isn't dangerous driving, the courts do. Complaint is made, statement taken from witness or witnesses if willing to make them, alleged offender is interviewed, statement taken if he/she is willing to make one, then the garda file is forwarded to local Supt. for decision on whether to prosecute or not.
Tickets are on the spot fines and careless/dangerous driving are not listed offences on them.

BrianD3

CLADA wrote:

Its the same as reporting any offence to the guards. Joe public doesn't decide what is or isn't dangerous driving, the courts do

OK i'll rephrase. Joe Public doesn't decide what is or isn't dangerous driving but Joe Public makes a statement as to what he saw. How can this statement be relied on? If the accused denies doing what he's accused of how can the case stand up in court? Both are members of the public. There are no other witnesses. There is no other evidence of an offence having been committed (I am talking about instances which don't result in any damage or injury)

Victor

BrianD3 wrote:

OK i'll rephrase. Joe Public doesn't decide what is or isn't dangerous driving but Joe Public makes a statement as to what he saw. How can this statement be relied on? If the accused denies doing what he's accused of how can the case stand up in court? Both are members of the public. There are no other witnesses. There is no other evidence of an offence having been committed (I am talking about instances which don't result in any damage or injury)

Its down to who's more believeable in front of a judge. In any case complainants would be looking at a charge of wasting police time / perjury if they lie. The accused is looking at making a false statement / perjury if they lie about a relatively minor charge.

Our man in Havana

I have some personal experience of this. I witneesed a driver overtake a lorry on a blind bend, a collision with another oncoming vehicle was narrowly avoided. I call the TW number and gave the details. A garda called to my home and took a statement. I was asked would I give evidence in court, which I said I would. About 6 months later I received a witness summons to appear. I was asked questions about what happened by the supt and by the judge. The judge was happy with my version of events and the said driver who failed to appear was convicted. Fined €500 and endorsed.

Ava

I agree how do guards differnetiate between busybodies and general concerns especially when there are no witnesses and no accident occurs.
also what's the limitation period? does it have to be reported that day? within 24 hours? within a week?

cushtac

Ava wrote:

...especially when there are no witnesses and no accident occurs...

How can anyone report an incident if there's no witnesses?

Ava

uhhhhhh.....think about this for just a minute (!!!!)

surplus witnesses to the person making the compalint......

dK1NG

yet more inroads by the criminal justice system?!

totally agree that this is a bit dodge, any chance of imposing an ASBO on busy-bodies like they done to that bloke in England

alfie

dK1NG wrote:

yet more inroads by the criminal justice system?!

totally agree that this is a bit dodge, any chance of imposing an ASBO on busy-bodies like they done to that bloke in England

What is dodge about it? Its how all investigations work, a complaint is made, statements are taken from witnesses and the suspected offender is normally offered to make a cautioned statement. Trafficwatch is nothing different. If somebody has a vendetta against another and complains about their driving just to get at that person it will be found out in a courtroom if it gets that far.

dK1NG

alfie wrote:

What is dodge about it? ...
If somebody has a vendetta against another and complains about their driving just to get at that person it will be found out in a courtroom if it gets that far.

i think that thats being a little naieve to be honest!!!
if you want the truth, the courtroom is often the last place you should look...

Overheal

the Gardai are probably enacting the Traffic Watch scheme under the basis that even if some busy-body does mis-call a situation; if they are wrong, the defendant will go balls to the wall to defend their innocence.

Either way, I'm sure they aren't going to accept every statement they receive. You have to credit the Gardai with having common sense and experience enough to determine the plausible from the fishy.

BrianD3

Overheal wrote:

the Gardai are probably enacting the Traffic Watch scheme under the basis that even if some busy-body does mis-call a situation; if they are wrong, the defendant will go balls to the wall to defend their innocence.

But what happens if the defendant can't remember the alleged incident. This is very possible. Let's say someone reports me for illegal overtaking. I will overtake many cars in the course of a weeks driving and as far as I'm concerned every overtake is safe and legal but I wouldn't be able to recall each indivdual one if questioned about it later. If I can't remember an incident and state in court that "no I definitely didn't overtake dangerously" that would be perjury. If I am truthful and say I can't remember the particular incident but that I never overtake dangerously then surely that weakens my defence.

dK1NG

could we find ourselves going back to a time when it was a case of the 'better' liar prevailing over the 'poorer' truth-teller (or, as was just said, the person who cant remember specifics)....:(

ChippingSodbury

So what other suggestions do you have? The Road Safety Authority have just this week asked the public for suggestions as to what they should do.
It's about time people started taking road safety seriously. If everybody used the TW number, after a while the loonys out there might get the message. I'm all in favour of this type of initiative and un-marked garda cars just driving around to witness dangerous driving. incidentally, I don't hold any faith in the speed cameras: I think the money could be much better spent, as I said above, on more un-marked cars etc.
I was involved in an accident earlier this year in which my car was written off (and almost me too) through no fault of my own: I think the other guy has been charged with dangerous driving. I don't want to become a statistic on the road: it really brings it home when you have personal exposure to an accident.

So please, be constructive and don't just knock the initiatives that are available: offer alternatives or improvements and make the roads safer for all.

BrianD3

ChippingSodbury wrote:

So what other suggestions do you have? The Road Safety Authority have just this week asked the public for suggestions as to what they should do.

I would have many suggestions but won't go into them here. They are all stating the obvious anyway.

One area which is obviously lacking in this country is driver training. At the moment we have a bizarre situation where someone can ring up trafficwatch and report a driver for an alleged offence and ther report is taken seriously despite the person doing the reporting never having done a driving test or read the rules of the road

Lets sort out driver training first and then *maybe* consider a trafficwatch type scheme.

RainyDay

BrianD3 wrote:

Lets sort out driver training first and then *maybe* consider a trafficwatch type scheme.

Why wait? If they are driving dangerously, why on earth would you want to delay addressing such cases while waiting for some driver training scheme that will probably only apply to L-drivers only.

MackQ

I can't see what all the fuss is about. Isn't reporting someone to TW just the same as walking into your local Garda Station and reporting a traffic offence?

As I understand it, the TW centre just pass your report onto the local station anyway who then phone you and ask you to call in to make a statement.

TW is really just another layer of bureaucracy in my opinion.

Victor

Up north, the PSNI are giving community watch groups speed cameras. If someone is caught, they are sent a letter warning them. On the third letter they are told that police officers will be detailed to catching them speeding. Its rare that it has to go beyond that.

RainyDay

MackQ wrote:

As I understand it, the TW centre just pass your report onto the local station anyway who then phone you and ask you to call in to make a statement.

TW is really just another layer of bureaucracy in my opinion.

From past experiences, it is relatively easily for the local guard to ignore your report to the local station. He/she will just tell you that 'he's looking into it' and will do absolutely nothing further.

When you report to TW, the incident is logged on the system, and it appears that Gardai and/or stations are held accountable for follow up. I've always got a follow up call eventually inviting me to give a formal statement from TW complaints, which never seemed to happen from direct complaints.

Our man in Havana

RainyDay wrote:

From past experiences, it is relatively easily for the local guard to ignore your report to the local station. He/she will just tell you that 'he's looking into it' and will do absolutely nothing further.

When you report to TW, the incident is logged on the system, and it appears that Gardai and/or stations are held accountable for follow up. I've always got a follow up call eventually inviting me to give a formal statement from TW complaints, which never seemed to happen from direct complaints.

Even then the complaint can get buried as a supt/dpp can simply ignore it as not being in the public interest to prosecute.

RainyDay

Bond-007 wrote:

Even then the complaint can get buried as a supt/dpp can simply ignore it as not being in the public interest to prosecute.

Yes and No. The supt can indeed decide not to prosecute, but that's quite different to 'ignoring it'. In the first instance, where a complaint is lodged over the counter, the supt may well never even hear about it. So going through the TW system, does indeed get you further.

Also, for certain offences, the individual Guard can decide to prosecute on his own accord, without any input from the Supt. So when I reported a guy driving the wrong way down a 1-way st, the Guard will need the Supt to prosecute for dangerous driving, but he told me that even if the Supt decides against prosecution, the Guard will summons the driver himself for breaking the 1-way rule.