Was the Judge right to loose the rag?

Gary ITR

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56593797&postcount=4

To me the judge went a bit overboard and was a bit hasty throwing this case out the door.

Geri Boyle

Yeah maybe he was a bit hasty alright, but the fact is the guard should have told the truth. If guards starting omitting some facts in court for whatever reason, then what chance is there of justice ever being done?
His intentions were pretty honourable in the circumstances but the guard should probably have known better. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and all that...

ojewriej

Isn't that what using discretion is all about?

Mutz

city4life wrote: »

i can't see why she stuck it out if all the essential proofs of a s49 were there...state could appeal to the circuit

seems like the guard was trying to do the decent thing by the girl

Exactly, the proofs are still there that he was over the limit.

If the fella wanted the roide he should have *pulled* (YEEEOOOO!!!) over

Certain things don't have to be said, as what relevance did it have to the case? To add to the judges perverted fantasies maybe?

Gary ITR

city4life wrote: »

i can't see why she stuck it out if all the essential proofs of a s49 were there...state could appeal to the circuit

seems like the guard was trying to do the decent thing by the girl

My thoughts exactly

TheNog

I think the guard did the right thing by the girl and the fella too but the dangerous driving charge should never have been put forward. He should have just stuck to the s49 only and left it at that. Open and shut case.

The judge should have also struck out the dangerous driving and dealt with the s49 but having that the he did plead not guilty which hence opened this can of worms. Lesson learned for the guard though.

It is a funny case though.

tallaght01

It's a shame. Coz many many people (me included) give out a lot about the gardai, and their general uselessness.

But then one of them tries to do the right thing by this girl, and he gets hammered for it. ****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't.

I do see the judge's point, but a bit of cop on (no pun intended) would have been nice.

Mutz

tallaght01 wrote: »

....

I do see the judge's point...

To be honest, i can't see his point. The charges before the court were not of a sexual nature, and so the evidence ommitted had absolutely no bearing on nessecary prrofs.

I think the Judge was on a bit of a power trip or had a few too many whiskeys before getting behind the bench.

tallaght01

I don't know much about the law, or the charges levied. But I mentioned it to me sister, who's a lawyer, and she reckons it just casts a lot of doubt over the reliabilty of the garda as a witness if he's deciding what info to give to the court, and what info not to give.

timmywex

No way he should get away with it, sure, in that cae, it could be argued that the garda forgot to say....anything! Like, he ommitted the fact that the driver was low on fuel....has nothing to do with the drinking i dont know if that driver actualy was low on fuel btw!!

Turner

...or that the garda took off his seatbelt, pulled up the handbrake, or farted before he arrested the man.

Dont see how it should have any bearing on the case if all the necessary proofs have been given in evidence.

Johnny Utah

The judge was right. The omission destroyed the credibility of the evidence. The garda left out a fact which could have been material to the charge of dangerous driving.

TheNog

Johnny Utah wrote: »

The judge was right. The omission destroyed the credibility of the evidence. The garda left out a fact which could have been material to the charge of dangerous driving.

Thats correct which supports my previous post that the dangerous driving charge should either have not been considered to save the blushes of the male and female or else the charge should have been followed up vigorously.

Mutz

Fair enough, let the Judge strike out the Section 53 RTA as the proof was ommitted.

But it does not excuse the judge ignoring the rest of the facts given. The man was drunk and he crashed. Should have been prosecuted fully and hopefully the DPP will re-enter it.

Victor

If the witnesses were willing to lie on one matter they were willing to lie about them all.

Eru

The fact left out was relevent to the dangerous driving so why he left it out I dont know. Should have included it in evidence however we have to remember something here. The Garda is a witness not the prosecution or the defence. As a witness you say what you say and its the defence or prosecutions job to ask you questions and therefore proving or disproving the case.

Should be re-entered as there were no grounds for dismissal. the judge stated that the Garda lied however NOT SAYING something is not lieing, saying something not true is.