Driver (21) banned from driving for 45yrs

PCPhoto

Honestly

this is the reason why criminals laugh at the judicial system:
- 10 previous convictions for the same offence
- judge turns around and says - I wont put him in prison 'cos he's already done that !!!

the sooner the judges give proper sentences the better - this guy has served jail for the same offence and goes out and does it again !!!

my question is do we need to reform the penal system and actually punish people for breaking the law 'cos the current system doesnt seem to be working ?

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/courts/young-driver-21-put-off-the-road-with-45year-ban-2122834.html

By Andrew Phelan
Friday April 02 2010

A YOUNG motoring offender has been banned from driving again until he is a pensioner, after a judge said a previous 25-year disqualification was not long enough.

Michael Moran (21) was banned from driving for 45 years after he admitted a series of charges of driving without insurance or a licence.

Imposing the ban, Judge John Coughlan said he would not jail Moran because he was already coming to the end of a prison term for similar offences.

Moran, of Drumcairn Avenue, Tallaght, pleaded guilty to driving without insurance, a licence or an NCT certificate in two separate incidents a few weeks apart in Tallaght last year.

He was caught at Brookview Park on August 5 and Brookfield Road on August 22.

He had no documentation and failed to produce any to gardai afterwards.

Tallaght District Court heard he had 10 previous convictions for uninsured and unlicensed driving, as well as convictions for dangerous driving, failing to stop for a garda, no road tax or NCT certificate and non-production of documents at a garda station.

"He has been in custody since last September and he has had a lot of these matters catch up with him," defence solicitor Grainne Malone said.

She added that the accused accepted he had been "driving around in cars for a period of time". He had already been handed down a 25-year driving ban by the courts.

"That is not long enough," Judge Coughlan said.

Oppose

Ms Malone said she could not oppose the judge giving a further disqualification.

Judge Coughlan said he would not add to Moran's prison sentence because he had already served a jail term for similar offences. He was coming to the "very end" of that sentence, Ms Malone said.

The judge banned Moran from driving for 45 years, endorsed the conviction on his licence and fixed recognisances in the event of an appeal.

"I won't put him back in prison, he's already done that," the judge added.

**Timbuk2**

Nah he deserves it. If an uninsured driver was to hit me, I mightn't get paid for the damage done, and those fcukers do not deserve to be on the road imo.

Hank_Jones

I honestly don't see how this is going to stop him from doing it again.

They should have just locked him up.
At least that way he wouldn't be able to do it for a significant period of time.

Clearly if he has been caught ten times, he is obviously at it a lot of the time.

Max Power1

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Nah he deserves it. If an uninsured driver was to hit me, I mightn't get paid for the damage done, and those fcukers do not deserve to be on the road imo.

but how will it stop him driving?

he drives already with no insurance tax or NCT - whats the small matter of no licence going to do to stop him? In for a penny in for a pound and all that.

MaybeLogic

Max Power1 wrote: »

but how will it stop him driving?

he drives already with no insurance tax or NCT - whats the small matter of no licence going to do to stop him? In for a penny in for a pound and all that.

Driving against the ban will result in a custodial sentence. Something that hangs over him for quite a while.

**Timbuk2**

Max Power1 wrote: »

but how will it stop him driving?

he drives already with no insurance tax or NCT - whats the small matter of no licence going to do to stop him? In for a penny in for a pound and all that.

That's a good point, actually - I didn't think of that.

In hindsight, he deserves to be locked up.

alex73

We need the turkish style of Justice here. Cut a hand off and that will stop him driving.

Traumadoc

MaybeLogic wrote: »

Driving against the ban will result in a custodial sentence. Something that hangs over him for quite a while.

He already had a ban!:rolleyes:

Max Power1

MaybeLogic wrote: »

Driving against the ban will result in a custodial sentence. Something that hangs over him for quite a while.

.. and thats where the previous for "failing to stop for a Garda" should have been taken into account

EDIT: He was already banned - how did he get off this time so??

MaybeLogic

Traumadoc wrote: »

He already had a ban!:rolleyes:

Max Power1 wrote: »

.. and thats where the previous for "failing to stop for a Garda" should have been taken into account

EDIT: He was already banned - how did he get off this time so??

You'd have to ask the judge that.
I doubt the next one will be so lenient.
What this judge has done is make sure that every time this fella is caught driving for the next 45 years (probably half that in practice) he'll be sent to jail.

Edit; Reading of quotes fail.

Coriolanus

He's already under a 25 year driving ban.

I really don't see what this extra length is going to do to deter him that the previous one hasn't already done.

That said, I'm not sure a custodial sentence would do anything either, since he's already served one and that hasn't deterred him either.

MaybeLogic

Nevore wrote: »

He's already under a 25 year driving ban.

Oh, I didn't spot that.
Lock up the judge, so.

Coriolanus

MaybeLogic wrote: »

Oh, I didn't spot that.
Lock up the judge, so.

Our judiciary needs a complete overhaul imo. For one thing I'd love a publicly accessible online database of all judgements handed down, searchable by offense, judge, date etc.

c-note

if a 25year ban didnt stop him, a 45 year ban wont.

i'd jail him for 5 years with 4.5 suspended
at the end of the six months, require him to sit a driving test within the next 6 months (or back to jail for the last 4 years)
and then if he's caught without tax insurance after that, send him back to jail for the rest of the 5 years.

i wonder sometimes how judges get appointed,
one things for sure, i wouldnt trust a judge to mind my kids (if i had any)

Max Power1

its only partly about deterring him from driving

the main issue is stopping him from driving, and causing an accident (as hes not insured etc he will flee the scene). A driving ban doesnt deter in this occasion whereas a custodial sentence at least stops him driving for a while.

Max Power1

By the way, this is a serious thread that has lasted till the second page in AH without being derailed? (driven off course if you will).

Im slightly disappointed tbh

OutlawPete

The guy IS in prison.

As his lawyer said, all these driving bans have caught up with him.

The judge is giving the guy the benefit of the doubt that this jail term he is now serving will turn him around and when he gets out, he goes on the straight and narrow.

In effect the guy is banned for life now anyway.

Andrew33

alex73 wrote: »

We need the turkish style of Justice here. Cut a hand off and that will stop him driving.

He could just buy/steal an automatic:rolleyes:

OutlawPete

Max Power1 wrote: »

A driving ban doesnt deter in this occasion whereas a custodial sentence at least stops him driving for a while.

He is serving a custodial sentence.

Max Power1

OutlawPete wrote: »

He is serving a custodial sentence.

which is due to end soon. Surely he deserves a custodial sentence for this offence aswell? Repeated driving with no insurance?

pyramuid man

Max Power1 wrote: »

but how will it stop him driving?

he drives already with no insurance tax or NCT - whats the small matter of no licence going to do to stop him? In for a penny in for a pound and all that.

I say cut off his legs. So there will only be a small amount of cars he can actually drive. He will be less likely to drive if he cant walk. If he cant walk, there are only a few cars adapted for use by people with no legs.

I think that the courts system could do with a little thinking outside the box on these ones.

OutlawPete

Max Power1 wrote: »

which is due to end soon. Surely he deserves a custodial sentence for this offence aswell? Repeated driving with no insurance?

Why?

Shouldn't be given the chance to see if this sentence has turned him around.

Ireland is in the middle of a recession where Bankers have stole millions and yet live in mansions and won't do a days hardtime locked in cell!!

This guy drove without a car without insurance and licence and you want him locked up some more!

I love this country.

Max Power1

OutlawPete wrote: »

Why?

Shouldn't be given the chance to see if this sentence has turned him around.

Ireland is in the middle of a recession where Bankers have stole millions and yet live in mansions and won't do a days hardtime locked in cell!!

This guy drove without a car without insurance and licence and you want him locked up some more!

I love this country.

Ill try that one if im court soon, will I?
Me: Yes i shot the guy in the back of the head, but judge, please dont sentence me, the bankers did worse?

FFS

bad2dabone

corkscrew -> ear

cheap lobotomy. problem solved.

Next case please!

Coriolanus

OutlawPete wrote: »

Shouldn't be given the chance to see if this sentence has turned him around.

Look at the timeline. He was taken into custody in September and though the article isn't specific, that does seem to be arising out of a custodial sentence.
So we can assume that he was in court late August/early September on the charges he's currently serving time on. No insurance, no license from the looks of it.
Yet only a week or three at most, he was charged with the charges that are coming to court now!

He quite clearly didn't seem to be fazed at all by the upcoming court dates since he continued with the behaviour that he was due up in court over.

OutlawPete

Max Power1 wrote: »

Ill try that one if im court soon, will I?
Me: Yes i shot the guy in the back of the head, but judge, please dont sentence me, the bankers did worse?

FFS

Talk about missing the fucking point.

I didn't say it should be his defense, don't be so facetious.

He's already been sentenced and again his last case has now been heard.

My point is that we need to have some perspective here on what the guy did.

He didn't stab someone, or commit an armed robbery or rob millions of euro or rape someone etc etc.

He is guilty of of not having an insurance policy and driving licence.

He's serving a sentence now.

He deserves a chance to see if that prison term has had an effect on him.

Max Power1

OutlawPete wrote: »

Talk about missing the fucking point.

I didn't say it should be his defense, don't be so facetious.

He's already been sentenced and again his last case has now been heard.

My point is that we need to have some perspective here on what the guy did.

He didn't stab someone, or commit an armed robbery or rob millions of euro or rape someone etc etc.

He is guilty of of not having an insurance policy and driving licence.

He's serving a sentence now.

He deserves a chance to see if that prison term has had an effect on him.

OK fine, I killed someone and am currently approaching the end of my sentence. Its just emerged that I killed someone else. Should I thus be let off with a slap on the wrist for the second one, and no custodial sentence?

MagicMarker

Max Power1 wrote: »

Ill try that one if im court soon, will I?
Me: Yes i shot the guy in the back of the head, but judge, please dont sentence me, the bankers did worse?

FFS

Ah come on! He's in prison right now, what's the point in keeping him there? When he get's out I'm sure he'll think twice about doing it again.

MagicMarker

Max Power1 wrote: »

OK fine, I killed someone and am currently approaching the end of my sentence. Its just emerged that I killed someone else. Should I thus be let off with a slap on the wrist for the second one, and no custodial sentence?

Apples & oranges.

Max Power1

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ah come on! He's in prison right now, what's the point in keeping him there? When he get's out I'm sure he'll think twice about doing it again.

MagicMarker wrote: »

Apples & oranges.

lets see how you feel if those "apples and oranges" crash into your brand new car and not insured - leaving you ti pick up the tab.

OutlawPete

Max Power1 wrote: »

OK fine, I killed someone and am currently approaching the end of my sentence. Its just emerged that I killed someone else. Should I thus be let off with a slap on the wrist for the second one, and no custodial sentence?

Your comparing murder to driving with paying for car insurance?

Yeah, good man.

Try a sensible metaphor and I may respond.

Bazzy

definitely thinking atari jaguar on this one!

MagicMarker

Max Power1 wrote: »

lets see how you feel if those "apples and oranges" crash into your brand new car and not insured - leaving you ti pick up the tab.

You should be sent to prison for breaking the speed limit by 1km/hr... MURDERER!!!!!!

:rolleyes:

cafecolour

I can't make up my mind TBH.

On one hand, it's clear that increasing 'driving bans' aren't going to stop him from driving (and perhaps encourage him to drive more recklessly if he thinks he's going to be caught).

On the other hand, putting someone in prison because they didn't buy insurance (even multiple times) seems sort of ridiculous, almost akin to debtor's prison. I mean, should someone go to jail since they keep not buying a television license but have a telly?

This might even be more big brother-ish, but I'd almost say after the second offense, basically just 'force' him to buy insurance by taking it directly out of his wages (or his dole).

Guy:Incognito

MaybeLogic wrote: »

Driving against the ban will result in a custodial sentence. Something that hangs over him for quite a while.

He was driving against the initial 25 year ban this time and did'nt get a custodial sentence.




EDIT, others got there first :-)

OutlawPete

cafecolour wrote: »

I mean, should someone go to jail since they keep not buying a television license but have a telly?

They do all the time.

People are sitting in an overcrowded dirty cell in Mountjoy now for not paying for their TV licence.

If you read some of the district court reporting in some of the regional papers it would shock you to see what people are imprisoned for.

Coriolanus

cafecolour wrote: »

This might even be more big brother-ish, but I'd almost say after the second offense, basically just 'force' him to buy insurance by taking it directly out of his wages (or his dole).

Now that's an interesting idea. They can and do garnish peoples wages to claw back child support, debt etc. But that's a case where the money is owed, whereas car insurance is a discretionary purchase.
What I mean is, what to do if he just turns around and says he doesn't plan on driving anymore? That he won't even be buying a car (something that could be tracked).
Do you force him to take out an open comp policy?

Coriolanus

OutlawPete wrote: »

They do all the time.

People are sitting in an overcrowded dirty cell in Mountjoy now for not paying for their TV licence.

If you read some of the district court reporting in some of the regional papers it would shock you to see what people are imprisoned for.

The flipside of that is that it'd shock a lot of people to see what people aren't imprisoned for.
Whether someone agrees or disagrees with this particular judgement, I think everyone agrees on the need for judicial/sentencing reform in general.

Guy:Incognito

MagicMarker wrote: »

Ah come on! He's in prison right now, what's the point in keeping him there? When he get's out I'm sure he'll think twice about doing it again.

Course he will :rolleyes:

cafecolour wrote: »

This might even be more big brother-ish, but I'd almost say after the second offense, basically just 'force' him to buy insurance by taking it directly out of his wages (or his dole).

Force him to buy insurance for what? He doesnt officially drive. He'll just say he desnt drive anymore till he's caught again.

OutlawPete

Stekelly wrote: »

He was driving against the initial 25 year ban this time and did'nt get a custodial sentence.

We critique judges here everyday but here I think the judge got it right.

This is the man's first time being imprisoned for driving related offenses.

The judge wants to see if being imprisoned has changed the man's behavior with reagards to driving.

What it so wrong with that?

Guy:Incognito

OutlawPete wrote: »

They do all the time.

People are sitting in an overcrowded dirty cell in Mountjoy now for not paying for their TV licence.

If you read some of the district court reporting in some of the regional papers it would shock you to see what people are imprisoned for.

No they're not. They are sitting in prison for refuseing to do as they were told by the court ie. go get a tv licence and pay the fine for not having one.

cafecolour

Nevore wrote: »

What I mean is, what to do if he just turns around and says he doesn't plan on driving anymore? That he won't even be buying a car (something that could be tracked).
Do you force him to take out an open comp policy?

I wouldn't do it on the first offense, but if he's done it multiple times, then yes, I'd err on the side that he'll do it again.

Or maybe just take the vehicle - ie 2nd or 3rd time caught driving uninsured, you permanently forfeit the vehicle you were driving.

cafecolour

OutlawPete wrote: »

They do all the time.

People are sitting in an overcrowded dirty cell in Mountjoy now for not paying for their TV licence.

Wow. That's insane. I'd say either garnish their wages for it, or maybe take their telly.

cafecolour

Stekelly wrote: »

Force him to buy insurance for what? He doesnt officially drive. He'll just say he desnt drive anymore till he's caught again.

I mean after a 2nd or 3rd offense, essentially assume he's going to drive and force him to buy insurance even if he claims he's not going to drive any more.

OutlawPete

Stekelly wrote: »

No they're not. They are sitting in prison for refuseing to do as they were told by the court ie. go get a tv licence and pay the fine for not having one.

Their initial crime was not to have a TV licence.

Usually people that don't have a license, have none because they can't afford one.

If they end up in prison for not paying the fine it is even more of a disgrace.

We are effectively locking up people for being in poverty.

Guy:Incognito

OutlawPete wrote: »

Their initial crime was not to have a TV licence..

That's not what they were locked up for. It's very black and white, you cant just say it and expect it to be true.

OutlawPete wrote: »

Usually people that don't have a license, have none because they can't afford one.

If they end up in prison for not paying the fine it is even more of a disgrace.

We are effectively locking up people for being in poverty.

Bull. Most people who dont have a licence d it because they either think they wont be caught, couldnt be arsed buying one or because hey are "fighting the system" by not buiying a licence for a tv and because " I dotn watch RTE , it's crap"

Even if what you said was true, why do people in poverty need to watch tv so badly? and how are they paying for NTL or sky? (or are you goign to tell me every one of them uses rabbit ears and watches RTE?)

OutlawPete

Stekelly wrote: »

Most people who dont have a licence d it because they either think they wont be caught, couldnt be arsed buying one or because hey are "fighting the system" by not buiying a licence for a tv and because " I dotn watch RTE , it's crap"

If what you say was true, then why don't they pay the fine???

You really think people would rather go to jail than pay a fine.

Wake up.

Stekelly wrote: »

Even if what you said was true, why do people in poverty need to watch tv so badly?

And there was me thinking you were serious, guess not.

Stekelly wrote: »

and how are they paying for NTL or sky? (or are you goign to tell me every one of them uses rabbit ears and watches RTE?)

Not all picking up the terrestrial signals maybe, I have a seven year old dish and receiver and I get Free To Air, perhaps they do the same.

Guy:Incognito

OutlawPete wrote: »

If what you say was true, then why don't they pay the fine???

You really think people would rather go to jail than pay a fine.

Wake up..

TBH I'd say most dont think a judge would have the balls to send them to jail. Others have done it as a form of protest,

You mae it sound like here are thousands of people rottign for years in jail.:rolleyes:

OutlawPete wrote: »

And there was me thinking you were serious, guess not.
..

Nice. Throw in a little comment like that with no arguement. I guess you win.

If peopel are in poverty and cant pay bills TV should be fairly low or their list of priorities.

OutlawPete

Stekelly wrote: »

You mae it sound like here are thousands of people rottign for years in jail.:rolleyes:

By saying that they go to Jail, I'm making it sound like they are "rottign for years in jail".

If you say so.

Stekelly wrote: »

Nice. Throw in a little comment like that with no arguement. I guess you win.

What do you expect by asking: "Why do people in poverty need to watch tv so badly?"

It's a ridiculous question / comment.

Stekelly wrote: »

If peopel are in poverty and cant pay bills TV should be fairly low or their list of priorities.

So they should just sit around the wireless should they?

PCPhoto

OutlawPete wrote: »

We critique judges here everyday but here I think the judge got it right.

This is the man's first time being imprisoned for driving related offenses.

The judge wants to see if being imprisoned has changed the man's behavior with reagards to driving.

What it so wrong with that?

how do we know its his first time in jail for driving related offences ? in the story it says he had 10 previous convictions for no tax/insurance/failing to stop for garda etc (which to me means speeding away from them 'cos he knew he was driving illegally)

I can see what you are saying that maybe a stint in prison will "open his eyes" but I think that given a previous 25yr ban - which he ignored - its more than likely he wont give 2 sh1ts, there will be no way of tracking him if he drives a car.

OutlawPete

PCPhoto wrote: »

how do we know its his first time in jail for driving related offences ?

We don't, but I don't think the judge would have worded his comments the way he did, were it not his first driving related custodial sentence.

PCPhoto wrote: »

I can see what you are saying that maybe a stint in prison will "open his eyes" but I think that given a previous 25yr ban - which he ignored - its more than likely he wont give 2 sh1ts, there will be no way of tracking him if he drives a car.

Well, then he will deserve a further spell in prison.