Careless driving summons, no police witness ?

paul_mason

Hi all, i have a freind who has been summonsed to court for careless driving. She is worried sick so i am trying to check what are her chances of getting the case dismissed and/or defending it are.

The offence was reported by another driver stating she overtook a vehicle in a dangerous manner(but got cited for careless driving). She got pulled over 30 miles further down the road by the traffic corp and told she had been reported.
She then gave a statement to police a few months later.
14 months later a policeman delivered the citation to her door to appear in court. (in a few weeks time)

To my knowledge, there are no independent witnesses or no guardai witnesses to this alleged offence. There was no accident, injury or damage caused to either vehicle.

My questions are :
How can she be convicted with no proof or evidence that she was driving carelessly ? she was not caught/seen speeding nor is the incident on cctv ?

Are the chances of this case getting dismissed higher as there was no accident or damage ?

The guard told her recently that the person who is persuing this is determined to have there day in court ? would the guards have advised this person to do this ?

Isnt the burden of proof here "beyond reasonable doubt". Personally, I dont see how this can be proved.

Any and all comments welcome ... as i dont seem to be able to offer her peace of mind.

Bosco boy

Don't under estimate civillian witnesses, based on what you have said there's a good chance that she'll be convicted, the gardai stopped her following the call close to the scene in the car that was reported for the dangerous driving and that is evidence in it's self, a good witness and a dangerous location like a bend and a bad overtake and it could be troublesome, tell her to get a solicitor!

paul_mason

Thanks for the reply ... im not underestimating civillian witnesses by any means, but surely if it was a garda witness, she'd be more likly convicted no matter what she says to defend herself ..

how can stopping a car 30 miles away from an alleged offence that the guards didnt see, become evidence ? The location was a straight streach of road ...

.. surely the judge cant convict someone without proof ? a statement from a witness on its own isnt proof its only a version of events without evidence. Doesnt the burden of proof dictate that an offence has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt ? i would be inclined to think what somebody says in a statement doesnt mean much without proof/evidence that it actually happened ? more liike hearsay

i would have thought this type of case is impossible to prove as its one civillians word against anothers, neither with proof to back up eithers version of events ?

MagicSean

This kind of situation is the whole point of the Traffic Watch system. A statement from a witness is plenty proof. Especially if they had a passenger. Your friend should consult a solicitor asap.

Merch

I hope Im not hijacking your thread but I have come across a similar experience where a garda stopped a car, told driver they nearly knocked down a cyclist, driver asked where this happened and told that back few hundred meters, driver says there was no cyclist in the last few hundred metres plus it had all cycle lanes, garda then says the cyclist rang in to a station, driver asks how could they respond so quickly, garda gets irate then tells them they were driving in a bus lane and nearly knocked down a pedestrian. (the driver may have slightly crossed the bus lane to turn into the estate and a pedestrian did cross as they were turning so the driver stopped to let them cross)

The fact is the driver while driving from airport direction towards santry (On a Sat, virtually no one one the roads and all cycle lanes up till the junction for the M1) missed a turn to the M1 continued on and turned left after the AIB (with the intention of turning in the estate to go back)

I was told by the driver they didnt see the garda car until they were pulled over but they think it just pulled out of the AIB or was turning there,
So no witnesses and what seemed to me like a hostile garda with a made up story, how do you deal with this? got fixed penalty, can this person go to court and have it thrown out, Garda didnt give number, was hostile, changing story, the driver is a young female with full licence, she said the garda seemed suprised after requesting her licence that it was a full licence and also that the Garda was raising his voice and she felt intimidated.

Bosco boy

Nash Unkempt Aftershave wrote: »

Any footage? Probalby her own fault for saying anything to the guard. Don't mean to be harsh but by the way the gard said the witness would have their day in court I am thinking he wanted her to say she was in the wrong. Gard told me I was speeding before, I said do you have a speed camera and he said no, and I said well there ye go I wasn't speeding. End of.

I don't know how you can make that deduction from the gaurd saying the witness wanted his day in court, the gaurd was merely explaining the seriousness with which the complainant viewed the matter, it's extremly unlikly CCTV would be available, when we don't know the exact allegation it's hard to judge it. In relation to the incident happening on a straight strech of road well people get killed on straight streches of road as well. In relatiion to being stopped 30 miles away, if the time of the incident and the time they were stopped corresponds with the time it takes to travel the 30 miles approximately then I see no problem with it.

MagicSean

Merch wrote: »

I hope Im not hijacking your thread but I have come across a similar experience where a garda stopped a car, told driver they nearly knocked down a cyclist, driver asked where this happened and told that back few hundred meters, driver says there was no cyclist in the last few hundred metres plus it had all cycle lanes, garda then says the cyclist rang in to a station, driver asks how could they respond so quickly, garda gets irate then tells them they were driving in a bus lane and nearly knocked down a pedestrian. (the driver may have slightly crossed the bus lane to turn into the estate and a pedestrian did cross as they were turning so the driver stopped to let them cross)

The fact is the driver while driving from airport direction towards santry (On a Sat, virtually no one one the roads and all cycle lanes up till the junction for the M1) missed a turn to the M1 continued on and turned left after the AIB (with the intention of turning in the estate to go back)

I was told by the driver they didnt see the garda car until they were pulled over but they think it just pulled out of the AIB or was turning there,
So no witnesses and what seemed to me like a hostile garda with a made up story, how do you deal with this? got fixed penalty, can this person go to court and have it thrown out, Garda didnt give number, was hostile, changing story, the driver is a young female with full licence, she said the garda seemed suprised after requesting her licence that it was a full licence and also that the Garda was raising his voice and she felt intimidated.

Gardas number should be on the FCPN. The person can go to court and fight their case if they want.

Mr. Presentable

Merch wrote: »

I hope Im not hijacking your thread but I have come across a similar experience where a garda stopped a car, told driver they nearly knocked down a cyclist, driver asked where this happened and told that back few hundred meters, driver says there was no cyclist in the last few hundred metres plus it had all cycle lanes, garda then says the cyclist rang in to a station, driver asks how could they respond so quickly, garda gets irate then tells them they were driving in a bus lane and nearly knocked down a pedestrian. (the driver may have slightly crossed the bus lane to turn into the estate and a pedestrian did cross as they were turning so the driver stopped to let them cross)

The fact is the driver while driving from airport direction towards santry (On a Sat, virtually no one one the roads and all cycle lanes up till the junction for the M1) missed a turn to the M1 continued on and turned left after the AIB (with the intention of turning in the estate to go back)

I was told by the driver they didnt see the garda car until they were pulled over but they think it just pulled out of the AIB or was turning there,
So no witnesses and what seemed to me like a hostile garda with a made up story, how do you deal with this? got fixed penalty, can this person go to court and have it thrown out, Garda didnt give number, was hostile, changing story, the driver is a young female with full licence, she said the garda seemed suprised after requesting her licence that it was a full licence and also that the Garda was raising his voice and she felt intimidated.

If she didn't see the garda car, might she have not seen the cyclist also?

Unless you were there you can't say "what seemed to me like a hostile garda with a made up story". Question: Why would a Garda be hostile and make up a story about a random motorist?

In court, unless she can produce another witness, the word of a state official will be accepted over that of an accused citizen.

Amazotheamazing

Was she actually driving dangerously, whether the Gardai witnessed it or not?

Just because there's a straight stretch of road doesn't mean you get a free pass on driving dangerously.

paul_mason

Thanks every1 for there opinions ...

still havnt got answers to my questions ? id prefer opinions on what may or can happen in court with a case like this ..

for instance, this is her word against another drivers with no independent witness or garda witness so should this mean she has a better chance of fighting the case ?????

she will look to get this dismissed on the grounds that the csae has taken nearly 2 years to get to court predjudicing her ability to defend herself properly ..

she counter claimed as the driver of the other vehicle speeded up while she was overtaking and this put her in a dangerous position, she said this to the patrol car that stopped her and requested notes be taken and passed to the relevent garda statio which they were not.

tanx again every1

paul_mason

k_mac wrote: »

This kind of situation is the whole point of the Traffic Watch system. A statement from a witness is plenty proof. Especially if they had a passenger. Your friend should consult a solicitor asap.

not sure on that one, another person in the car cant be used as an independent witness, as they would have biased opinions, and especially if it was a relative ? dont think the court would allow that entered as a credable independent witness ...

wotzgoingon

I was in court and got convicted twice by civillian witnesses.

Most she will get is a fine and points on her licence as careless driving is not as bad as a dangerous driving offence.

But be warned if after the court case if she is in court for a simular driving offence she will be put off the road and fined.

detective

look there has been a few very good posts here with good advice. civilian witnesses are very important and like a previous poster said that is the whole point of the traffic watch programme.

you asked what relevance did the guard stopping here afterwards have? it proves she was driving the car that was reported. if the guard conversed with her then he/she may have ascertained where the driver came from, i.e. the direction of where the alleged incident took place.

you also state a judge can't convict without evidence. this is true. however, how are you to know there is no evidence in this case. i presume you haven't seen the statement made by the complainant.

she needs a solicitor.

Bosco boy

paul_mason wrote: »

not sure on that one, another person in the car cant be used as an independent witness, as they would have biased opinions, and especially if it was a relative ? dont think the court would allow that entered as a credable independent witness ...

with all due respect you dont know what your talking about! As they say " a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing" tell her to go to a solicitor.

nuac

You can suffer a RTA conviction without a Gárda witness.

See a solicitor who practises in the District Court to which you are summonsed.

Merch

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

If she didn't see the garda car, might she have not seen the cyclist also?

Unless you were there you can't say "what seemed to me like a hostile garda with a made up story". Question: Why would a Garda be hostile and make up a story about a random motorist?

In court, unless she can produce another witness, the word of a state official will be accepted over that of an accused citizen.

I wasnt there and it certainly could have been the case, but while I dont think she is the best of drivers, she is capable enough (she has her full licence) and she is very conscientious. Like everyone, I guess she is not constantly looking in the rear view mirror although I glance back reasonably frequently, it was quiet at the time and the last time she looked they werent there, ie the traffic lights just moments before and as soon a she passed the bank they were behind her flashing the lights so I think the cyclist story is bull myself, personally how she described it to me, I think they stopped her to see if she had a full licence with the intent of doing something about it, when he discovered she actually had a full licence he didnt accept that and gave her a bollicking, she did say he had no numbers displayed and she was so rattled after him raising his voice that she forgot to ask, she doesnt know what station he is from, I'm suggesting she write a letter of complaint to a superintendant if she finds out where he is from, if thats not satisfactory or promptly replied then ombudsman.

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Was she actually driving dangerously, whether the Gardai witnessed it or not?

Just because there's a straight stretch of road doesn't mean you get a free pass on driving dangerously.

Like I said I wasn't there, but from what she described and what I know she wouldn't be driving dangerously, but I know she was upset and I'm adamant that she wouldn't be unless that garda had overstepped the mark, which I think he did.

paul_mason

nuac wrote: »

You can suffer a RTA conviction without a Gárda witness.

See a solicitor who practises in the District Court to which you are summonsed.

she spoke to a solicitor today, heres what she was told :

1) the judge will most likely not dismiss the case regardless of why the defence says it should be(unless theres a glaring error on the summons, which theres not) ... the judge will want to hear the evidence

2) she will be asked to take the stand and give her interpitation of the events

3) the judge will most likely ask her some questions about what happened

4) the judge will make the decision who he thinks is telling the truth .. the solicitor did say being confident and speaking clearly to the judge is paramount. any showing of dishonesty( ie, stuttering not looking at the judge when speaking to him, talkin into the floor, fidgeting etc ) will be picked up on straight away as guilt.

5) apparently, if she is convicted while persuming her innocence, the full penalty will be imposed ... a first conviction may help avoid a disqualification.

6) the solicitor will be asked to put forward a case as to why she needs her license and this may also help besuade the judge from removing it if she is convicted ...


all in all a pretty gluumey outlook ... she is now feeling worse off .. after all she was the one in danger not the driver of the other vehicle.

she just heard the driver of the other vehicle had a pregnant lady with him at the time !! i wonder will this seal her fate in court

FreudianSlippers

Did the solicitor discuss pleading guilty with her?

Doom

paul_mason wrote: »

Hi all, i have a freind who has been summonsed to court for careless driving. She is worried sick so i am trying to check what are her chances of getting the case dismissed and/or defending it are.

The offence was reported by another driver stating she overtook a vehicle in a dangerous manner(but got cited for careless driving). She got pulled over 30 miles further down the road by the traffic corp and told she had been reported.
She then gave a statement to police a few months later.
14 months later a policeman delivered the citation to her door to appear in court. (in a few weeks time)

To my knowledge, there are no independent witnesses or no guardai witnesses to this alleged offence. There was no accident, injury or damage caused to either vehicle.

My questions are :
How can she be convicted with no proof or evidence that she was driving carelessly ? she was not caught/seen speeding nor is the incident on cctv ?

Are the chances of this case getting dismissed higher as there was no accident or damage ?

The guard told her recently that the person who is persuing this is determined to have there day in court ? would the guards have advised this person to do this ?

Isnt the burden of proof here "beyond reasonable doubt". Personally, I dont see how this can be proved.

Any and all comments welcome ... as i dont seem to be able to offer her peace of mind.

I hope she gets done....:)

paul_mason

OisinT wrote: »

Did the solicitor discuss pleading guilty with her?

no, shes not pleading guilty to something she didnt do, that would not make sence.

paul_mason

Doom wrote: »

I hope she gets done....:)

you would ...

Bosco boy

paul_mason wrote: »

no, shes not pleading guilty to something she didnt do, that would not make sence.

So she's going to take your advice rather than the solicitors! Smart!!

FreudianSlippers

paul_mason wrote: »

no, shes not pleading guilty to something she didnt do, that would not make sence.

You never said she didn't do it. Sounds to me like you were asking if she could be found guilty based on evidence of a 3rd party - not the Gardaí.
If she was carelessly driving (subjective), then she should seriously consider a guilty plea.

MagicSean

How was she the only one in danger?

paul_mason

OisinT wrote: »

You never said she didn't do it. Sounds to me like you were asking if she could be found guilty based on evidence of a 3rd party - not the Gardaí.
If she was carelessly driving (subjective), then she should seriously consider a guilty plea.

why would she consider pleading guilty if shes being blamed in the wrong? she has nothng to hide and with no garda witness its obvious to fight the accusation isnt it ?

paul_mason

k_mac wrote: »

How was she the only one in danger?

she went to overtake the car in front, the car in front speeded up and exposed her to danger for longer than nessesary. She then had to pull in quickly and complete the manuver before she ended up in a crash.
He obviously didnt like the fact she pulled in in front of him but if hadnt had speeded up this wouldnt have happened in the first place !

FreudianSlippers

My point is you have never once said she was not driving carelessly.

It's one thing to put the Gardaí on strict proof, but on careless driving it is a subjective offence. Yes, there may not be a Garda witness, but certainly the 3rd party could be a witness.

You just have to remember that while she will certainly not be penalised for pleading not guilty, she will be waiving any potential leniency she would have received for pleading guilty at an early stage.
It is at the very least something which the solicitor should have discussed with her.

djk1000

paul_mason wrote: »

she went to overtake the car in front, the car in front speeded up and exposed her to danger for longer than nessesary. She then had to pull in quickly and complete the manuver before she ended up in a crash.
He obviously didnt like the fact she pulled in in front of him but if hadnt had speeded up this wouldnt have happened in the first place !

She could have slowed down and fallen back in behind. I'm sure of course that this other driver pulled over before phoning the Gardai! Something stinks about a Judge being able to take one persons word over another, without further evidence in a non-civil case.

detective

djk1000 wrote: »

Something stinks about a Judge being able to take one persons word over another, without further evidence in a non-civil case.

Why does it? Something stinks about rape and child sexual abuse too but everyone would get away with it if Judges/Juries weren't able to take one person's word over another.

paul_mason

You just have to remember that while she will certainly not be penalised for pleading not guilty, she will be waiving any potential leniency she would have received for pleading guilty at an early stage.
It is at the very least something which the solicitor should have discussed with her.[/QUOTE]

i think he did but said if there was no accident, injury or damage ... she should fight it i court as theres a chance the judge mite dismiss it as theres a real lack of evidence ...
it does stand to reason, you couldnt prove this beyond reasonable doubt with no evidence other than a statement ?

twowheelsonly

paul_mason wrote: »

she went to overtake the car in front, the car in front speeded up and exposed her to danger for longer than nessesary. She then had to pull in quickly and complete the manuver before she ended up in a crash.
He obviously didnt like the fact she pulled in in front of him but if hadnt had speeded up this wouldnt have happened in the first place !

I understand what you're saying here but it's entirely circumstancial - The driver in front has the right of way and is quite entitled to speed up. Perhaps he hadn't seen her go to overtake and was quite startled by it. Your friend doesn't have a divine right to overtake just because there's a straight stretch of road and she thinks the guy in front is driving too slowly.
Obviously none of us are aware of the full circumstances or location but is it possible that they had come off a 'twisty' slow section of road and was impatient having been stuck behind this other guy. Loads of drivers, probably quite rightly, drive slower on these roads and then speed up on a staighter stretch. Experience should tell your friend this.
IMO she'll get done unless the other guy is a totally obnoxious p***k who makes a habit of doing things like this.

paul_mason

detective wrote: »

Why does it? Something stinks about rape and child sexual abuse too but everyone would get away with it if Judges/Juries weren't able to take one person's word over another.

i think the comparision here is not right, careless driving with no accident or injury is not comparible to rape or child abuse !!!

FreudianSlippers

paul_mason wrote: »

i think the comparision here is not right, careless driving with no accident or injury is not comparible to rape or child abuse !!!

Who said there needs to be accident or injury for careless driving? If the solicitor told you that you have been grossly misinformed.

52 (1) A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place without due care and attention.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment."

paul_mason

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I understand what you're saying here but it's entirely circumstancial - The driver in front has the right of way and is quite entitled to speed up. Perhaps he hadn't seen her go to overtake and was quite startled by it. Your friend doesn't have a divine right to overtake just because there's a straight stretch of road and she thinks the guy in front is driving too slowly.
Obviously none of us are aware of the full circumstances or location but is it possible that they had come off a 'twisty' slow section of road and was impatient having been stuck behind this other guy. Loads of drivers, probably quite rightly, drive slower on these roads and then speed up on a staighter stretch. Experience should tell your friend this.
IMO she'll get done unless the other guy is a totally obnoxious p***k who makes a habit of doing things like this.

speeding up when someone is overtaking you is not only dangerous and rude but it keeps you on the wrong side of the road and exposes you to danger for longer ... maybe this person is a p***k and makes habits of this as my freind has never been in an accident and has no convictions after 20 yrs of driving.
Oh, and driving more than 15% slower than a spped limit(main roads only here), entices people to overtake you, any slower than that and you are more dangerous on the road than somebody speeding .. thats my 25 yrs experiance of driving the lenth and breath of this country shows me

detective

paul_mason wrote: »

i think the comparision here is not right, careless driving with no accident or injury is not comparible to rape or child abuse !!!

it wasn't aimed at you paul but a previous poster stated that criminal (non civil) matters shouldn't be allowed to proceed if it was one person's word against another's. i disagree with this comment and hence gave a strong example. this is a criminal case, albeit very very summary in its nature, and therefore all evidence must be available to the judge so he can make his decision. otherwise people could drive around as they wished so long as a garda didn't see them do it.

Inquitus

twowheelsonly wrote: »

I understand what you're saying here but it's entirely circumstancial - The driver in front has the right of way and is quite entitled to speed up. Perhaps he hadn't seen her go to overtake and was quite startled by it. Your friend doesn't have a divine right to overtake just because there's a straight stretch of road and she thinks the guy in front is driving too slowly.
Obviously none of us are aware of the full circumstances or location but is it possible that they had come off a 'twisty' slow section of road and was impatient having been stuck behind this other guy. Loads of drivers, probably quite rightly, drive slower on these roads and then speed up on a staighter stretch. Experience should tell your friend this.
IMO she'll get done unless the other guy is a totally obnoxious p***k who makes a habit of doing things like this.

But surely by this logic any person who can stand up and speak well can have another convicted rightly our wrongly.

paul_mason

OisinT wrote: »

It only needs to be proved on the balance of probabilities since it is not a criminal matter.

incorrect ... any conviction has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offence indeed did take place. otherwise the courts would be a free for all for people with grudges ..

FreudianSlippers

paul_mason wrote: »

incorrect ... any conviction has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offence indeed did take place. otherwise the courts would be a free for all for people with grudges ..

I misread the previous post (djk1000's) and was not talking about the careless driving.
Civil matters only have to be proved on balance of probabilities.

paul_mason

OisinT wrote: »

I misread the previous post and was not talking about the careless driving.
Civil matters only have to be proved on balance of probabilities.

no problem .. i just think it unfair someone can get someones liscence destryed for a number of years when no accident took place or injury..

i see bad overtaking maneuvers every day but i dont report them all if any ! i think the traffic watch is good but it entices people who have nothing better to do with there time to cause other people a lot of pain by reporting them for some meaningless offences.
im sure when she sees the statement against her it will be completly different to what she has in hers, but i would expect that anyways

paul_mason

Inquitus wrote: »

But surely by this logic any person who can stand up and speak well can have another convicted rightly our wrongly.

unfortunately this is what does happen, some people are just not good at speaking in public and in court this is a killer negative and can be your undoing

FreudianSlippers

paul_mason wrote: »

no problem .. i just think it unfair someone can get someones liscence destryed for a number of years when no accident took place or injury..

i see bad overtaking maneuvers every day but i dont report them all if any ! i think the traffic watch is good but it entices people who have nothing better to do with there time to cause other people a lot of pain by reporting them for some meaningless offences.
im sure when she sees the statement against her it will be completly different to what she has in hers, but i would expect that anyways

Again, careless driving is an offence of not driving with due care and attention. This has nothing to do with accidents. In fact if there was an accident your friend would be in a lot more trouble.

paul_mason

Bosco boy wrote: »

So she's going to take your advice rather than the solicitors! Smart!!

no she wont, im doingsome homework on her behalf ... i dont recall ever mentioning she was taking my advice. she is not aware im reseraching it this way

FreudianSlippers

paul_mason wrote: »

unfortunately this is what does happen, some people are just not good at speaking in public and in court this is a killer negative and can be your undoing

I suppose you are correct in this statement, but again this is why some of us spend the time and money to become barristers.

In the district court the solicitor can even do most of the talking leaving only the evidence to be given by your friend. If the truth is being told then there is no reason that they should not be able to do this. It isn't really public speaking, it is the witness speaking to the judge and relaying the honest story of what happened on the day.
Being honest, even if it results in a careless driving charge will have a far better outcome than attempting dishonesty of any kind on the day.

paul_mason

OisinT wrote: »

Again, careless driving is an offence of not driving with due care and attention. This has nothing to do with accidents. In fact if there was an accident your friend would be in a lot more trouble.

if there was an accident it would more likely be reckless or dangerous driving ? putting somebody off the road for speculating what might have happened other than what did happen is not a good recourse for justice ..

if she does get convicted and become uninsurable i feel it will be very harsh indeed ...

paul_mason

OisinT wrote: »

I suppose you are correct in this statement, but again this is why some of us spend the time and money to become barristers.

In the district court the solicitor can even do most of the talking leaving only the evidence to be given by your friend. If the truth is being told then there is no reason that they should not be able to do this. It isn't really public speaking, it is the witness speaking to the judge and relaying the honest story of what happened on the day.
Being honest, even if it results in a careless driving charge will have a far better outcome than attempting dishonesty of any kind on the day.

i couldnt agree more, she is best standing up and stating her case to the judge herself, lieing is only an option for thugs and criminals who know they are guilty. I hope when she appears in court that she does herself justice in the judges eye and recounts her actions confidently. If she still gets convicted at least she'll have a clear conscience

FreudianSlippers

paul_mason wrote: »

if there was an accident it would more likely be reckless or dangerous driving ? putting somebody off the road for speculating what might have happened other than what did happen is not a good recourse for justice ..

if she does get convicted and become uninsurable i feel it will be very harsh indeed ...

It could be careless or dangerous driving IMO (a Garda would know better here), but you'd also be opening yourself up to a civil claim in negligence or a personal injury claim (if there was an injury).

As far as putting someone off the road, that all depends on the number of penalty points and/or the number of previous careless driving offences.
If you look at the Act, the fine can be as low as 50 punts (or the Euro equivalent) and 5 penalty points.
If you already have 8 penalty points, this will put you at the 6 month disqualification level.

For the repeat careless driving offenders there is a max fine of €1500 and/or an up to six month imprisonment.

FreudianSlippers

paul_mason wrote: »

i couldnt agree more, she is best standing up and stating her case to the judge herself, lieing is only an option for thugs and criminals who know they are guilty. I hope when she appears in court that she does herself justice in the judges eye and recounts her actions confidently. If she still gets convicted at least she'll have a clear conscience

That was essentially my point about pleading guilty - if she thinks back and could see legitimately how she could have been careless then a guilty plea may get her off easier than a not-guilty plea and being found guilty.
I doubt suggesting that it was the other driver's fault is going to fly, but that's just my opinion.

paul_mason

OisinT wrote: »

It could be careless or dangerous driving IMO (a Garda would know better here), but you'd also be opening yourself up to a civil claim in negligence or a personal injury claim (if there was an injury).

As far as putting someone off the road, that all depends on the number of penalty points and/or the number of previous careless driving offences.
If you look at the Act, the fine can be as low as 50 punts (or the Euro equivalent) and 5 penalty points.
If you already have 8 penalty points, this will put you at the 6 month disqualification level.

For the repeat careless driving offenders there is a max fine of €1500 and/or an up to six month imprisonment.

again, there was no accident, no damage and no injury and no garda witness, no cctv footage and no independent witness.
even with all the above, she could still loose her lisence and/or get a conviction which will make it impossible to get insured. That to me is just not fair justice

FreudianSlippers

You're missing what I'm saying. There doesn't need to be an accident to be careless driving.
If she gets 5 penalty points and that causes her to lose her licence, you cannot blame the careless driving offence - blame the other 8 points she got in a 12 month period too!


Obviously there is a witness, someone had to inform the Garda that she was driving carelessly (perhaps she passed an off duty Garda?)

paul_mason

OisinT wrote: »

That was essentially my point about pleading guilty - if she thinks back and could see legitimately how she could have been careless then a guilty plea may get her off easier than a not-guilty plea and being found guilty.
I doubt suggesting that it was the other driver's fault is going to fly, but that's just my opinion.

dont know about that one ... if she pleads guilty she will get the maximum fine and conviction and is admiting guilt.
You do not get off easy pleading guilty in traffic court(unless its a seroius crime), there is only one rule here, 5 points and a conviction, pleading guilty will get you the same, nothing more, nothing less !!
she is not going to blame the other driver but merely state what actually happened and let the judge make a decision, this case is minor in the careless bracket(no accident or injury)
and would not warrent a disqualification if convicted, especially for a first offence.
i could be wrong here, id have to speak to a solicitor to get the stats

FreudianSlippers

It is incorrect, pleading guilty does not result in maximum fine and conviction necessarily. You're likely to get a lower fine by pleading guilty than being found guilty.

I'm not saying she should plead guilty, I'm just saying it should have been an option explored by the solicitor IMO.