Speeding Day in Court - what to do

Gumbyman

Hey. I will be in court over Summer over unpaid penalty point notice. Clocked at 121 while overtaking on 100 zone. Anybody know if there's any point protesting or should I just show up and take my punishment?

Was stuck behind 4 lorries in tight convoy for about 10 miles and finally got straight stretch of open road with hard shoulders and no oncoming traffic and took my chance. Otherwise perfectly clean driving for 10 years. I don't like speeding, but I genuinely believe it was the safest thing to get past these boys as quickly as possible instead of running the risk of being stuck in no man's land with oncoming traffic. Not looking for legal advice, just practical advice.

Thanks!!
Gumbyman.

HungryJoey

If the trucks were travelling ~100 km/h, but you still decided to pass them out breaking the speed limit while doing so I'd hazzard a guess take the punishment :rolleyes:

Anan1

I'd say dress well, be pleasant and apologetic. Good luck.

Tigger

if the speed limit was 100 the trucks should have been doing 80

i feel that you were in the right cranking it up to overtake quickly and then back down to the speed limit but i'd have paid the points

were you pulled or informed by post?

Marcus.Aurelius

HungryJoey wrote: »

If the trucks were travelling ~100 km/h, but you still decided to pass them out breaking the speed limit while doing so I'd hazzard a guess take the punishment :rolleyes:

Its an awful situation, government have their scapegoat (speeding) and are whacking it to pieces. Appeals against the offence are not a good idea, they rarely work out.

However I have heard of people escaping the problem by declaring that they never received the fine in the post. Because the fines are not sent by registered post, the State is unable to prove otherwise, and hundreds of thousands of people have used this technicality to escape the net. Judges are more or less obliged to throw it out for no evidence presented.

In no way do I personally advocate the above, and it might backfire on you.

Tigger

maoleary wrote: »

Its an awful situation, government have their scapegoat (speeding) and are whacking it to pieces. Appeals against the offence are not a good idea, they rarely work out.

However I have heard of people escaping the problem by declaring that they never received the fine in the post. Because the fines are not sent by registered post, the State is unable to prove otherwise, and hundreds of thousands of people have used this technicality to escape the net. Judges are more or less obliged to throw it out for no evidence presented.

In no way do I personally advocate the above, and it might backfire on you.

that will work if it is a posted fine
not if he was pulled by a cop

Marcus.Aurelius

Tigger wrote: »

that will work if it is a posted fine
not if he was pulled by a cop

Wrong

The Traffic Corps now use a handheld device to issue a fine, when they return to the station the data is uploaded and the fine is issued by post from the Fixed Penalty Office a fortnight or so later.

Check your information before posting please. This has been the case since mid-2007

Tigger

maoleary wrote: »

Wrong

The Traffic Corps now use a handheld device to issue a fine, when they return to the station the data is uploaded and the fine is issued by post from the Fixed Penalty Office a fortnight or so later.

Check your information before posting please. This has been the case since mid-2007

the i didn't know i was done for speeding is hard to pull if the cop that pulled you is sitting across friom you in court

but what the hey you obviously know better than i

Marcus.Aurelius

Tigger wrote: »

hard to pull if the cop that pulled you is sitting across friom you in court

He pulls so many people every day, he only knows your name from the printout from PULSE.

The onus still falls on the state to provide proof of receipt of the fine by the accused. And they can't unless it's from a GATSO van/fixed camera, as the car is photographed. A copy of the photo is sent with the fine by registered post.

In the OP's case, if the fine was not sent by registered post, there is no evidence that can be provided to the contrary. And the prosecuting Garda is always present, but hundreds of thousands of these fines have still been struck out.

It's a matter of conscience for the OP anyway, our conversations are meaningless.

Mena

I love the way the motorist gets pulled yet the trucks travelling 20Kph over the limit (far more dangerous (in general) than a car doing 20Kph over the limit) are ignored...

conical

I have a court date coming up this summer too. I am actually contesting the accuracy of the speed reading (handheld speed gun).

I think the best piece of advice I've got so far (though I haven't done it yet) is to go to the court on a day-off or something, and observe how other cases unfold, what kind of cases are being thrown out and why etc.

Not that you'll be changing your story, but you might change the way you present it.

bazzachazza

Option 1)ask a solicitor what to do will cost €200+

Option 2)as you were speeding and therefore breaking the law you could just turn up and take the punishment.

Zube

Option 3) Pay a solicitor to attend and say "Admitted and Regretted". This should get you the lowest penalty on the day.

cpoh1

Zube wrote: »

Option 3) Pay a solicitor to attend and say "Admitted and Regretted". This should get you the lowest penalty on the day.

Option 4) Show up on court on the day, tell them you never received any fine in the post and have it struck out of court. This will get you no penalty on the day.


You are not in court for speeding, you are in court for not paying the fine. If they cant prove that you were issued with the fine then you cant have paid it simple as that.

bazzachazza

cpoh1 wrote: »

Option 4) Show up on court on the day, tell them you never received any fine in the post and have it struck out of court. This will get you no penalty on the day.


You are not in court for speeding, you are in court for not paying the fine. If they cant prove that you were issued with the fine then you cant have paid it simple as that.

And risk everything blowing up in your face if it doesn't work and doubling the points and fine.

If you want to go down this route get some Legal advice and ask would they recommend doing this.

FX Meister

if he admits it he gets double points anyway surely?

Seth Brundle

Mena wrote: »

I love the way the motorist gets pulled yet the trucks travelling 20Kph over the limit (far more dangerous (in general) than a car doing 20Kph over the limit) are ignored...

How do know they weren't done?

Marcus.Aurelius

bazzachazza wrote: »

And risk everything blowing up in your face if it doesn't work and doubling the points and fine.

If you want to go down this route get some Legal advice and ask would they recommend doing this.

Can't happen, states evidence cannot be proven, case must be thrown out, or else accused will appeal against it, and win. Legally, the accused is in the right if he uses the "fine never arrived" excuse.

Not endorsing this route personally

cpoh1

bazzachazza wrote: »

And risk everything blowing up in your face if it doesn't work and doubling the points and fine.

If you want to go down this route get some Legal advice and ask would they recommend doing this.

As was mentioned earlier, he gets 4 points anyway regardless. From a legal point of view doing this is foolproof. The original judge set a precedent by accepting that you need proof of delivery of the fine and striking out the original cases.

Zube

maoleary wrote: »

Not endorsing this route personally

because it involves committing perjury, a crime with a much stiffer sentence than a speeding fine.

Marcus.Aurelius

Zube wrote: »

because it involves committing perjury, a crime with a much stiffer sentence than a speeding fine.

From the wiki:

Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing

From that definition, there is no perjury taking place. The legislation regarding speeding fines provides that the accused must have received the fine, and allocated sufficient time in which to pay said fine by means of a fixed penalty notice. Where in the case of such a fine the accused has not received said notice, and the prosecution cannot verify same was received, the matter cannot proceed to prosecution.

Del2005

Mena wrote: »

I love the way the motorist gets pulled yet the trucks travelling 20Kph over the limit (far more dangerous (in general) than a car doing 20Kph over the limit) are ignored...

The OP never mentioned the speed of the trucks. All they said was they where stuck behind a convoy of trucks and that they went 21kph over the limit to pass the convoy ASAP. Other posters assumed the trucks where doing 100kph.

Zube

maoleary wrote: »

From the wiki:

Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law or in any of various sworn statements in writing

So if the original poster received the fine in the post and swore he did not, he would be committing perjury since he is lying under oath.

You may say he's unlikely to be caught, but the fact remains that perjury is an actual crime, not just a matter of penalty points. I'd rather take the points than lie in court under oath, myself.

Marcus.Aurelius

Zube wrote: »

So if the original poster received the fine in the post and swore he did not, he would be committing perjury since he is lying under oath.

No no no :cool: Didn't you even see the bold print??? The whole sentence is qualified & quantified by the words "verifiably false"

Jesus &^&*in Christ

If they can't prove he did receive it, it ain't perjury.

/mutters evil under his breath

/reaches for coat and takes 6 vicodin....much better

Zube

Look up that word "or", there.

Marcus.Aurelius

So?

It changes nothing. Lying must be proven. Otherwise, it ain't perjury and he cannot be convicted of it.

This thread is getting O/T. Can we get back to advice to the OP now?

Zube

So lying OR making verifiably false statements is perjury.

Really, Gumbyman, consult someone who's read Law, or at least someone who can read English, before going to court.

Gumbyman

Hi guys,

Thank you very much for the replies here. The trucks were doing about 90 (had been doing far lower speeds but they sped up when we hit the open road). I was chased and pulled over down the road. Chased sounds over dramatic..... but anyway.
Just wondering - is there a monetary fine or is it just points I'm liable to receive?
Also, I always thought a summons was supposed to be served in person but mine came through the letterbox. Does this mean anything?

Thanks again - this has all been very useful!

Gumby.

Zube

Oh, one more thing, Gumbyman, if you are tempted to lie in court about receiving the fine, you'll have to phrase questions to any solicitor rather carefully in hypotheticals. No solicitor will risk advising you to perjure yourself.

So "If I didn't receive the fine in the post, what would the legal situation be?" is OK. "I received the fine, is it true I can get off by lying about it under oath?" is a bad question.

ART6

Like a lot of motoring offences speeding is one for which there is no admissible defence and no mitigation AFAIK. The law says 100 kph. You were clocked at 120 kph. End of. Why you were doing it is irrelevant in the blinkered eyes of THE LAW. Even if you were doing it to escape a dangerous situation, you would still be guilty. All you could hope for would be that the court might take pity and minimise your fine (fat chance).

Even after all that, the fact remains that you didn't pay a fine when it was due. Frankly, not a good move since the system is deliberately weighed against you in any case. I'd suggest go to court, say very sorry yer honour, made a balls of it and won't do it again, and I apologise to the nice Guard over there....:o

mickdw

The "never got the fine" argument is certain to get you off. Courts are aware of it and the original judge had strong words for the government on the stupid system they are using for posting out the offences. A new postal system is soon to be trialed to fix the problem. I think it is a system where you have to sign for it while still not being as secure as registered post so it should be cheaper to operate.
Judge will have to let you off but ask a solicitor to satisfy yourself.

thedarkroom

I'd recommend going with ART, you've admitted here on an open forum that you have done the deed, you got the letter and now there is a discussion/debate about the possibility of committing perjury to get off. Go to court, give your humble apology to the court and the Guard and promise not to do it again. Go off in silence and hope that is the end of it. Remember you can be identified here by your IP Address and if you piss off the Guard enough for wasting his time and make him look stupid, then he will follow it up. I know I would, I'm vindictive like that.
Pay up, take your punishment and get on with your life. It could be worse.

craichoe

thedarkroom wrote: »

IRemember you can be identified here by your IP Address and if you piss off the Guard enough for wasting his time and make him look stupid, then he will follow it up. I know I would, I'm vindictive like that.
Pay up, take your punishment and get on with your life. It could be worse.

HA HAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ...

CSI ... Ballintemple .. lol

L1011

thedarkroom wrote: »

I'd recommend going with ART, you've admitted here on an open forum that you have done the deed, you got the letter and now there is a discussion/debate about the possibility of committing perjury to get off. Go to court, give your humble apology to the court and the Guard and promise not to do it again. Go off in silence and hope that is the end of it. Remember you can be identified here by your IP Address and if you piss off the Guard enough for wasting his time and make him look stupid, then he will follow it up. I know I would, I'm vindictive like that.
Pay up, take your punishment and get on with your life. It could be worse.

Considering:
1. Thousands of people say they never got the summons every year
2: There OP hasn't provided any proof of who he is
3: This isn't a TV show

The above situation is not going to happen.

Mr. Presentable

mickdw wrote: »

The "never got the fine" argument is certain to get you off. Courts are aware of it and the original judge had strong words for the government on the stupid system they are using for posting out the offences. A new postal system is soon to be trialed to fix the problem. I think it is a system where you have to sign for it while still not being as secure as registered post so it should be cheaper to operate.
Judge will have to let you off but ask a solicitor to satisfy yourself.

No, no,no.

There is at least one documented case (it may even have been discussed on this forum) of a judge coming down hard on the defence "I never got the fine in the post" when he heard it several times in one morning. He may even have requested evidence the defendant had ever complained to an post for post not received, and observed the convenience that the only post never delivered was penalty points :rolleyes:

craichoe

nipplenuts wrote: »

No, no,no.

There is at least one documented case (it may even have been discussed on this forum) of a judge coming down hard on the defence "I never got the fine in the post" when he heard it several times in one morning. He may even have requested evidence the defendant had ever complained to an post for post not received, and observed the convenience that the only post never delivered was penalty points :rolleyes:

If you never got the letter then how are you supposed to complain to An Post about it ?

Mr. Presentable

craichoe wrote: »

If you never got the letter then how are you supposed to complain to An Post about it ?

Any letter! Ever. Phone bill, electricity bill, birthday card. Just evidence there was ever a problem getting post at your address.

cpoh1

nipplenuts wrote: »

Any letter! Ever. Phone bill, electricity bill, birthday card. Just evidence there was ever a problem getting post at your address.

Its doesnt matter!!!

The onus is on the prosecution that they can prove 100% that you received the fine in the first place not on you to proce you didnt receive it!

Mr. Presentable

cpoh1 wrote: »

Its doesnt matter!!!

The onus is on the prosecution that they can prove 100% that you received the fine in the first place not on you to proce you didnt receive it!

http://www.fingal-independent.ie/frontpage/claimed-he-did-not-get-fine-in-post-1356498.html

craichoe

nipplenuts wrote: »

Any letter! Ever. Phone bill, electricity bill, birthday card. Just evidence there was ever a problem getting post at your address.

Yeh, i sent them a complaint alright .. but they must of lost that too

cpoh1

nipplenuts wrote: »

http://www.fingal-independent.ie/frontpage/claimed-he-did-not-get-fine-in-post-1356498.html

They did a survey on this and found that the mail was sent out??? Interesting one that.

If I was in that guys case i would have appealed and won that decision end of story. The judge made a lot of assumptions rather than following the letter of the law in that case.

Zube

cpoh1 wrote: »

If I was in that guys case i would have appealed and won that decision end of story.

This was in the District Court, so you'd have to appeal to the Circuit court. You need a barrister for that, say €5000 for a day, plus your solicitor's fees. I'm sure your cunning plan won't fail a second time, though.

cpoh1

Zube wrote: »

This was in the District Court, so you'd have to appeal to the Circuit court. You need a barrister for that, say €5000 for a day, plus your solicitor's fees. I'm sure your cunning plan won't fail a second time, though.

My partner is a solicitor some of my closest friends are barristers, my fees wouldnt cost me a penny!

Steve

nipplenuts wrote: »

http://www.fingal-independent.ie/frontpage/claimed-he-did-not-get-fine-in-post-1356498.html

Being stopped by a Guard for speeding (or mobile phone in your link) is different. At that point, you should be expecting something in the post.

If you are caught by a gatso you don't know about it and therefore aren't expecting a fine in the post.

Mr. Presentable

stevec wrote: »

Being stopped by a Guard for speeding (or mobile phone in your link) is different. At that point, you should be expecting something in the post.

If you are caught by a gatso you don't know about it and therefore aren't expecting a fine in the post.

The point is...............the judge is not accepting "lost in the post" as an excuse, given the frequency (90% quoted in the story) it is offered. You don't have to be expecting it for it to turn up.

Mr. Presentable

cpoh1 wrote: »

My partner is a solicitor some of my closest friends are barristers, my fees wouldnt cost me a penny!

I've a friend who is a solicitor too. She works Herbert Square/Leeson park area, and I'm pretty sure she knows some barristers too! Never makes a difference in costs though.,:D

Steve

nipplenuts wrote: »

The point is...............the judge is not accepting "lost in the post" as an excuse, given the frequency (90% quoted in the story) it is offered. You don't have to be expecting it for it to turn up.

It the case you linked, it's not clear if whether it was a fixed penalty notice or a summons that got "lost".

In the case of a fixed penalty notice, the legislation states that the accused must be afforded a chance to pay the fixed penalty before proceedings can be issued. The defence being used is that the accused was not afforded the chance to pay the FPN as it didn't arrive in the post. The state is not in a position to provide evidence that it was received (or even posted) so the case fails.

The other part of it is that once a judgement is made like this a precedent is set and so a different judge hearing an identical case with identical defence and identical lack of evidence *cannot* come to a different decision.

This is a loophole in the legislation that needs to be fixed either by using registered post or changing the law. I suspect they will fix this when the leglislation covering outsourcing speed tax cameras is brought in.

Until then, I would not feel the slightest bit guilty taking advantage of the governments lawmaking ineptitude.

Zube

stevec wrote: »

Until then, I would not feel the slightest bit guilty taking advantage of the governments lawmaking ineptitude.

Translation: Will lie under oath for €200.

cpoh1

Zube wrote: »

Translation: Will lie under oath for €200.

Who said anything about lying under oath? When this kind of thing is heard in court it never gets to the stage of the defendant being sworn in and lying in the stand. The judge simply strikes it out.

Zube

cpoh1 wrote: »

The judge simply strikes it out.

Except when he doesn't, as in the newspaper story linked earlier.

Steve

Zube wrote: »

Translation: Will lie under oath for €200.

If you tell your solicitor you never got it and the solicitor tells the court is it still perjury?