Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Driving Ban - restoration of licence.

  • 14-10-2009 9:27pm
    #1
    Ab roller plus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭


    The law on this subject confuses me and I wonder whether it would be worth having a case stated to High Court.

    Recently consequential disqualification periods have increased for drink driving. Depending on how much over the limit someone is the minimum ban is either, 1 year, 2 years or 3 years.

    Obviously more alcohol in the system = longer ban. But, when it comes to restoration of a licence, under section 7 of 2006 RTAct, entitlment to apply to get a licence back only arises when the original ban is more than 2 years. So only those who are in the "very drunk" category of driver can get the licence back.

    If your really drunk when your caught you get three years but can get your licence back after 2. On the other hand, if someone is over the limit by say 1 micro gram, a one year ban is handed down and they cannot get the licence back at all before the time is up.

    Again if someone is in are in the middle category then two years and must serve two years.

    In short the legislature is saying if your gonna drink and drive you may as well get hammered because only the really drunk drivers can apply for restoration. Unfair or not? Proportionate or not?

    Many District Court Justices seems to know that this is an unfair law because they are always handing down bans which are 2 years and 10 days or 2 years and one month when requested by solicitors. They are doing this because they want the individual who they are sentencing to be entitled to get their licence back early.

    Surely, more alcohol in the system means the bigger the danger you are and you deserve more punishment, and if the length is based on the amount of alcohol in the system then there should be a better scale than just a one year, two year and three year minimum ban.

    Maybe a 6 month, 12 month, 18 months, 24 months. When it comes to restoration then the drunk ones should not be entitled to apply to get the licence back or everyone should have the same right.

    The other option is to ban drink driving altogether - which I would like to see happen.


Comments

  • #2
    dermot_sheehan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭dermot_sheehan


    It's changed though as although you can apply when half way through your ban, you can only apply for the last 1/3 to be lifted.

    The logic is that its discretionary and ought to be exercised when someone is hard done by by the ban and has been complying with the ban and is generally law abiding.


  • #3
    slimjimmc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,786 ✭✭✭slimjimmc


    Ab roller plus wrote: »
    They are doing this because they want the individual who they are sentencing to be entitled to get their licence back early.

    Just to clarify, there's no entitlement to getting your licence back early, it's entirely up to the discretion of the court. You are only entitled to apply, big difference.


  • #4
    Ab roller plus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭Ab roller plus


    gabhain7 wrote: »
    It's changed though as although you can apply when half way through your ban, you can only apply for the last 1/3 to be lifted.

    The logic is that its discretionary and ought to be exercised when someone is hard done by by the ban and has been complying with the ban and is generally law abiding.

    If this is the case then why is the entitlement to apply for restoration not applied similarly accross the board. Surely, those who are a tiny bit over the limit are going to be hard done by with a one year ban? But, its only those who are extremly drunk who can apply for restoration. Do you get my point here?
    slimjimmc wrote: »
    Just to clarify, there's no entitlement to getting your licence back early, it's entirely up to the discretion of the court. You are only entitled to apply, big difference.

    Oh sorry, thats what I meant. Still there is no avoiding the fact that Judges are disqualifying people for 2 years and one day so as to give then the opportunity to apply for restoration. Same Judge will probably be dealing with the restoration and will more than likely allow the retoration are 2/3 of the ban is completed.


  • #5
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    Ab roller plus wrote: »
    If this is the case then why is the entitlement to apply for restoration not applied similarly accross the board. Surely, those who are a tiny bit over the limit are going to be hard done by with a one year ban? But, its only those who are extremly drunk who can apply for restoration. Do you get my point here?

    As to the why - there is no why, it just is. The Road Traffic Act 2006 changed the procedure for restoration and excluded anyone who did not get disqualified for over 2 years from the entitlement to apply.


  • #6
    Ab roller plus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 55 ✭✭Ab roller plus


    Coler wrote: »
    As to the why - there is no why, it just is. The Road Traffic Act 2006 changed the procedure for restoration and excluded anyone who did not get disqualified for over 2 years from the entitlement to apply.

    Why has the legislasture introduced this exclusion? What are they trying to achieve - to me it seems like they are treating people with longer bans favourably in the sense that they may not have to serve the entire ban.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Reloc8
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,857 ✭✭✭Reloc8


    Ab roller plus wrote: »
    Why has the legislasture introduced this exclusion? What are they trying to achieve - to me it seems like they are treating people with longer bans favourably in the sense that they may not have to serve the entire ban.

    You'd have to ask them that. It is certainly somewhat anomalous in principle and does mean that a person who gets a flat two years, versus a person DQ'd for three years, are extremely likely to be off the road for the same period of time - i.e. 3 years.


Advertisement