Summons for Speeding

JOHNSPILLANE

Hello,

Someone please tell me this is not true.

A friend was telling me that his speeding case got struck out after he informed the judge that he never recieved a fine in the post.

He said that the normal procedure is that a fine is issued, if the fine is not paid a summons is issued. However if you go to court and inform the judge that younever recieved the fine in the post, he has no option but to strike the case out.

Is this yet another disgraceful loop hole, or was he leading me on?

L1011

Depends on the judge. They can and have decided to give the increased fine/points anyway on the basis that you've no proof you didn't receive it.

smcgiff

It's a couple of weeks since I was informed I'd be getting a summons re speeding and have as yet not received anything in the post.

Would not fancy having to explain to a judge on receipt of a court summons that I didn't get an original summons in the post though!

Stephen

MYOB wrote: »

Depends on the judge. They can and have decided to give the increased fine/points anyway on the basis that you've no proof you didn't receive it.

Surely the burden of proof is on the prosecution? i.e. send the fines by registered post.

L1011

Stephen wrote: »

Surely the burden of proof is on the prosecution? i.e. send the fines by registered post.

In any reasonable country it would be, yes. But ah sure that'd take a few quid off the revenue generation possibilities now wouldn't it :rolleyes:

Good lawyer would almost certainly get you off on it. But I think their assumption is good lawyer + day off work is more expensive than 80 quid and 2 points.

maidhc

MYOB wrote: »

Depends on the judge. They can and have decided to give the increased fine/points anyway on the basis that you've no proof you didn't receive it.

The fact is the depts system is so bad that they cannot even prove they sent the fine... and in many cases they dont. And as is rightfully pointed out the onus to prove the case lies on the prosectuion.

So yes, if people are happy to perjure themselves in court they can get away with speeding. No need for a lawyer for that, better off without one to be honest!

Gandalf23

maidhc wrote: »

The fact is the depts system is so bad that they cannot even prove they sent the fine... and in many cases they dont. And as is rightfully pointed out the onus to prove the case lies on the prosectuion.

So yes, if people are happy to perjure themselves in court they can get away with speeding. No need for a lawyer for that, better off without one to be honest!

This is correct. There was a slot on Matt Cooper's show yesterday and it said exactly this.

JOHNSPILLANE

MYOB wrote: »

Depends on the judge. They can and have decided to give the increased fine/points anyway on the basis that you've no proof you didn't receive it.

You cannot prove a negative.

The big boys are more than happy to lie in court. Think Billy Clinton and so on.

Seth Brundle

JOHNSPILLANE wrote: »

You cannot prove a negative.

The big boys are more than happy to lie in court. Think Billy Clinton and so on.

A garda's word frequently stands over that of a civilian. Thats why proof is not even required for a speeding conviction!

maidhc

kbannon wrote: »

A garda's word frequently stands over that of a civilian. Thats why proof is not even required for a speeding conviction!

Proof is required. A conviction can not be secured by one gardas opinion someone was speeding without either another garda, or a speed gun. Gatso vans cannot be left unattended. An operator must be inside in one to corroborate the evidence if necessary.

The reason fixed cameras can be unattended is the markings on the road provide the corroborating evidence.

In the above cases the garda's word is not even relevant, as there is never a dispute but that the person was stopped and was speeding. The dispute is the person was never afforded the opportunity to pay the fixed charge notice.

sesswhat

JOHNSPILLANE wrote: »

You cannot prove a negative.

Can you prove that?;)

TwoShedsJackson

smcgiff wrote: »

It's a couple of weeks since I was informed I'd be getting a summons re speeding and have as yet not received anything in the post.

Would not fancy having to explain to a judge on receipt of a court summons that I didn't get an original summons in the post though!

It can take months for them to send those out so I wouldn't be wondering where it is just yet.

As for getting off the fine and points, this is entirely possible as long as you are prepared to lie under oath in a court of law that you didn't get the notice (assuming of course you did get it )

So if you don't mind doing that, give it a go, the last taxi driver I spoke too said he had thrown out the last three speeding fine/points notices he got, said he never got them, and that was that. (not saying it's just taxi drivers doing this, but he's the last person I talked to about this).

JHMEG

kbannon wrote: »

A garda's word frequently stands over that of a civilian.

All citizens are created equal..

Further to maidhc's thing, my father got a case thrown out of court about 30 years ago because the two gardaí giving evidence did not give the same evidence. Judge said "one of ye is lying... case dismissed"

Seth Brundle

maidhc wrote: »

Proof is required. A conviction can not be secured by one gardas opinion someone was speeding without either another garda, or a speed gun. Gatso vans cannot be left unattended. An operator must be inside in one to corroborate the evidence if necessary.

The reason fixed cameras can be unattended is the markings on the road provide the corroborating evidence.

In the above cases the garda's word is not even relevant, as there is never a dispute but that the person was stopped and was speeding. The dispute is the person was never afforded the opportunity to pay the fixed charge notice.

JHMEG wrote: »

All citizens are created equal..

Further to maidhc's thing, my father got a case thrown out of court about 30 years ago because the two gardaí giving evidence did not give the same evidence. Judge said "one of ye is lying... case dismissed"

I know of several instances (and am thinking of one in particular) where people got done by a garda who caught them with a speed gun but hadn't got the reading to show them!

maidhc

kbannon wrote: »

I know of several instances (and am thinking of one in particular) where people got done by a garda who caught them with a speed gun but hadn't got the reading to show them!

Correct, that is an exemption provided for expressly in the road traffic acts. Is it an infringment of our civil liberties? But all we are talking about is speeding offences, and the entire speed enforcment system would grind to a halt otherwise. So then one must ask, is it justified? The answer is.... Probably!

What a garda says though is far from gospel. Indeed if some judges get a whiff the garda is pulling a fast one they will eat him (or her) without salt.

stratos

go to court people i should have 6 points i have none. its a gamble i admit but if you can talk and look okay the judges are nuts you will get off. don't be shmuck go to court. hey if a guy breaks into your house he gets a day in court why shouldn't you ? if everyone went to court this travesty of justice would soon be done away with. anyway lmao speeding used to cost me money, now its even easier to get away with.

S.I.R

Ive heard of this Myth but then again i know guys who got straight bans for doing well over a ton on the m50....

luck of the draw imo...

arybvtcw0eolkf

kbannon wrote: »

A garda's word frequently stands over that of a civilian. !

Thats because the guard takes an oath on the bible and we don't (for traffic offences). So the court takes the view that the guard is telling the truth.

markpb

Stephen wrote: »

Surely the burden of proof is on the prosecution? i.e. send the fines by registered post.

People can refuse to sign for registered post so the summons is returned. An Post are introducing a new system like registered post where the package is tracked so delivery can be proven but the recipient doesn't sign for it so it can't be refused.

maidhc

Mairt wrote: »

Thats because the guard takes an oath on the bible and we don't (for traffic offences). So the court takes the view that the guard is telling the truth.

No, anyone who testifies in the box takes an oath.

S.I.R

maidhc wrote: »

No, anyone who testifies in the box takes an oath.

only in CSI

i didnt have to

po0k

What if you're a buddhist?

stevoman

JOHNSPILLANE wrote: »

Hello,

Someone please tell me this is not true.

A friend was telling me that his speeding case got struck out after he informed the judge that he never recieved a fine in the post.

He said that the normal procedure is that a fine is issued, if the fine is not paid a summons is issued. However if you go to court and inform the judge that younever recieved the fine in the post, he has no option but to strike the case out.

Is this yet another disgraceful loop hole, or was he leading me on?

Leading you on. The only way a case wioll be struck out in court is if the summons is not served on the said defendant

maidhc

po0k wrote: »

What if you're a buddhist?

Well they definately have a copy of the Koran for Muslims in every district court, and proboably have other holy books too. If people are some other religion/or aethiest they basically still do the same thing but omit references to religion.

lynchie

stevoman wrote: »

Leading you on. The only way a case wioll be struck out in court is if the summons is not served on the said defendant

Not entirely true.. if you don't get the summons (like what happened to me) you get a judgement made in your absence (in my case it was a ban and 1200 quid fine). I only found out when they sent out the fine and ban in the post. You can apply for a set aside, go back to court and contest it with the garda. If granted, the judgement is thrown out and the garda can start the whole process over again should they wish.

mikemac

maidhc wrote: »

Well they definately have a copy of the Koran for Muslims in every district court, and proboably have other holy books too. If people are some other religion/or aethiest they basically still do the same thing but omit references to religion.

If you're an athiest it's no problem. You can swear on a copy of the 1937 Constitution.
Now if you're a non-national and a athiest, then I don't know what you do??

maidhc

micmclo wrote: »

If you're an athiest it's no problem. You can swear on a copy of the 1937 Constitution.
Now if you're a non-national and a athiest, then I don't know what you do??

You affirm that you are telling the truth. Same thing as an oath just no religion!

I don't see the big deal. The bible isn't something that should affect the ability of a right thinking person to tell the truth.

JOHNSPILLANE

stevoman wrote: »

Leading you on. The only way a case wioll be struck out in court is if the summons is not served on the said defendant

What are you on about. People here have done this. Keep your lies and pro garda opinions to yourself.

I asked for the truth not propaganda.




mod edit: I'm in a good mood - otherwise I would have banned you for being abusive towards another poster!

Onthebus

kbannon wrote: »

I know of several instances (and am thinking of one in particular) where people got done by a garda who caught them with a speed gun but hadn't got the reading to show them!

even if they show you the hand held gun and its reading its still only a number on an lcd, there is no picture of your car or no licence plate. What they show you could be the reading from the last car that went by above the limit?
Its pretty thin........

Seth Brundle

Thats my point - success has been based purely on the word of the garda!
If you read the post in the link I referenced, you will see that the author wasn't even shown a figure!

thetourist

i just recieved a summons to appear in court today for being caught speeding last feburary - i didnt get a fine in the post - i presume the reason is that they had the wrong address on it and dont ask me how the summons got to me but im glad it did ( at least i have a chance of a defence ) .... does anyone have any advice for me ?? - i suppose i just have to go to court on that day or ???? I dont mind paying the fine and getting the points but ....


by the way

The bible isn't something that should affect the ability of a right thinking person to tell the truth.

i agree ---- and believe it or not so does the bible !! -- Jesus actually clearly forbade his followers from swearing at all !

33 “Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’ 34 But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35 nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36 Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. 37 But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.

Matt5:33

I always find this incredibly amusing - it shows how perverted things have gotten in our society throughout the ages .

Gary ITR