Judge throws out speeding summons

waster81

Over 100 summonses for speeding were thrown out by a Dublin judge this morning, bringing the total to more than 200 dismissed in the past two days.
The summonses against more than 200 people were thrown out of court because the local authorities did not publish speed limit changes in the official Government publication Iris Oifigiúil as required.
The gardaí sought adjournment of the cases when they became aware of the problem but Judge Clare Leonard refused this application.
Advertisement

The gardaí are now seeking legal advice on how to proceed in forthcoming cases from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It is not clear how many more cases could be affected but it estimated to be in the hundred

Just wondering because i got a letter in the post got caught on speeding camera on the section of the motorway from port tunnel to the exit for the airport, and i know this is the section of road that the judge was talking about. Will this mean i can appeal it or do i have to go to court.
I know shouldnt be speeding was 90 in 80 km zone.

Tom Young

So?

Mr. Presentable

Was the limit where you offended changed recently and not notified as per requirements? No? Ah, well. Yes? Woohoo!

Yama83

Does anyone know what roads exactly were not referred to in Iris Oifigiuil. On the news they said part of he N4 and part of the M1 towards the airport where the limit drops to 80km/p/h

servicecharge

This loop hole isn't a loop hole.

The Gardai on the day didn't have the necessary proofs.

The Road Traffic Act 2004 provides that special speed limit bye-laws be published in a daily newspaper, the Iris isn't mentioned.

The council don't have to publish bye-laws in the Iris. The Local Government Act 2001 specifically states a bye-law won't be invalid simply because it was not published.

Similarly the Statutory Instruments Act 1947 provides that if a bye-law hasn't been published it will not be invalid if the prosecution can show it took reasonable steps to bring it to the publics attention.

They published these notices in two national newspapers so...

The DPP will provide the gardai with the necessary proofs for future cases.

SC

Victor

servicecharge wrote: »

This loop hole isn't a loop hole.

Does this mean that the garda can re-enter the charges?

Seth Brundle

servicecharge wrote: »

This loop hole isn't a loop hole.

The Gardai on the day didn't have the necessary proofs.

The Road Traffic Act 2004 provides that special speed limit bye-laws be published in a daily newspaper, the Iris isn't mentioned.

The council don't have to publish bye-laws in the Iris. The Local Government Act 2001 specifically states a bye-law won't be invalid simply because it was not published.

Similarly the Statutory Instruments Act 1947 provides that if a bye-law hasn't been published it will not be invalid if the prosecution can show it took reasonable steps to bring it to the publics attention.

They published these notices in two national newspapers so...

The DPP will provide the gardai with the necessary proofs for future cases.

SC

Assuming that you are correct then why were 200 cases thrown out of court for something which I presume was so obvious to a legal expert (the judge!)?

Our man in Havana

Victor wrote: »

Does this mean that the garda can re-enter the charges?

Nope. Unless they are still within the 6 month limit.

servicecharge

You have to remember that Gardai prosecute most speeding fines, there’s rarely a solicitor from the DPP. The reason for this is that speeding fines are rarely defended on technical grounds. In this case somebody was probably smart or going to be banned and decided to fight the fine.

So when an unusual technical ground is raised in defence the gardai are not equipped to deal with it.

In this case the technicality related to the publication in the Iris. The Gardai simply did not know what to say to this point, nor would they have had the actual paper proof if they knew what was going on. Therefore cases were struck out. Don’t forget the Gardai tried to adjourn these cases, probably to allow them to get the necessary evidence.
So for those two days there was a lot of head scratching and talking to the DPP. The DPP will now instruct the Gardai to have with them the documentary evidence that the bye-laws were published in national newspapers and that this was sufficient for the purposes of the 1947 Act. In the mean time the bye-laws will be published in the Iris closing off defendants’ ability to challenge the fines on these grounds.

So the short answer for KBannon is: It is not the judges job prosecute the case. She correctly threw out the cases as the Gardai could not rebute the evidence of a defendant that the 1947 Act had not being complied with.

Our man in Havana

In the mean time the bye-laws will be published in the Iris closing off defendants’ ability to challenge the fines on these grounds.

Publishing them now only protects them from now. Anyone caught up until yesterday will still have the non publication defence.

servicecharge

They will still have the defence that it was not in the Iris. I didn't dispute that. What I said was that the Gardai will now be in a position to rebut that defence by showing the bye laws were (in the case of the M1 at least) published in two national newspapers.

Remember the 1947 acts states that if it can be shown that sufficient effort was made to bring the bye-laws to the publics attention then they shall be valid.

The Road traffic and local government act requirements will support this rebuttal in that publication in two newspapers is enough under these acts to bring the matter to the publics attention.

Victor

Bond-007 wrote: »

Nope. Unless they are still within the 6 month limit.

But surely, in that case, an adept solicitor could argue any bunkum , e.g. the prosecution hadn't proved it was a mechanically propelled vehicle.

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

But surely, in that case, an adept solicitor could argue any bunkum , e.g. the prosecution hadn't proved it was a mechanically propelled vehicle.

A gardas evidence that it was a mechanically propelled vehicle is sufficient for that, likewise a garda's evidence that it was in a public place.

Surely you are not suggesting that an officer of the court would make a spurious argument?

Victor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Surely you are not suggesting that an officer of the court would make a spurious argument?

No, merely an obtuse one.