Drink driving charge - how to proceed? Documentary obligations of gardi?

RareVintage

Any advice would be appreciated but, having read the forum rules, I am not seeking legal advice but practical advice.
Forum moderator: I will try not to infringe on the rules, I certainly don't want to prejudice any court case. Hopefully my description of these hypothetical events is within the forum rules.

I will give the background as a hypothetical set of circumstances.

A person returns home mid-morning distraught having been arrested after being stopped at a checkpoint and failing a breath test.
The person was moving car to legal parking space; stupid but having arranged a place to stay with friends they were trying to actually avoid drink-driving!
The person is tested on "intoxilizer" at station. Garda conducting test seemed unsure of procedure and sought advice from another garda present. Imagine that the result "for the purposes of that section (of the RTA 1961)" is 71mg/100ml.

Lets say this was Saturday very early morning. On leaving station mid-morning the person was told (verbally) to appear in court the following Tuesday.
The person was told they could drive home but declined and left to get taxi some miles to home.
The only documentation provided on leaving was the test print out (over limit).
By lunchtime and at home the person doesn't know what court, what time was specified. The person does not know the location of their car, who has the keys or where (presumably in the station, or left in the car??).
This person's housemate is now wondering what should or should not be done...

Imagine that, with a housemate fitfully asleep upstairs, one would now be very concerned about what should be done and the possible absence of documentation. Only one week-day before (undocumented) requirement for court appearence.

My questions fall into two parts:
-practical advice on what to do now (it being a Saturday afternoon)
-I've not been through this myself but some of these hypothetical circumstances I find puzzling.

I'll start with the second:
- Did the gardi not have a duty to inform the person, upon leaving the station several hours later in mid morning, as to the safekeeping of their property (keys) and car? Is there no requirement for paperwork? The keys were not offered to be returned.
-As they were arrested, should they not have been bailed? Should there not be a document to this effect?
-Would a person in these circumstances be officially charged? Is there no document for this?

As to the practical advice, if someone can offer any:
In such circumstances what is a good way to go about finding a solicitor experienced in representing drink-drive cases?
In such circumstances one might be tempted to phone the garda station to enquire about keys and car, and maybe about possible lack of documentation. Would that be a bad idea? I might imagine it would be...

Lastly, imagine that you could ascertain from a gard who is a friend of a friend and who could look up the record on the computer system, that the original stop of the car was at a "mandatory" checkpoint. Imagine that this gard informed you that the gardi must have written authority for the time & location of this checkpoint.
-Would it be advisable to request the (yet to be found) solicitor to require a copy of this authority, and in doing so would that thus require the solicitor to request the court appearance to be put back (given that this would happen on the Monday and the garda's verbal request to appear is for the Tuesday)? I ask this because I imagine that if such authority were absent there would be no case to answer but also that if the accused appears in court in the meantime (before copy of authority is received by solicitor) they would, in my opinion, be best advised to plead guilty as they obviously failed the test.
I am not saying that no such authority exists, it probably does but gards do make mistakes...
This detail makes me think that a solicitor with drink-driving case experience is essential

Any advice for such circumstances would be greatly appreciated...

RareVintage

Now I'm confused.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71141210
On that thread from this Marchsomeone says the limit is 80mg/100... hasn't it been changed to 50?
What limit is in current law?

MagicSean

In general, after a fail result on an intoxalyser a person will be charged and bailed to court. They will be given a copy of the charge sheet and will sign a bail bond and be given an original of that too. The car will usually be left in the station yard to be picked up in the morning unless it has been seized under section 41 of the road traffic act.

In practice, drunk people often throw away the docmentation or refuse to accept it.

In theory, if a person was fully sure they were not charge or bailed they would not be required to turn up at court. In practice, if they cannot be sure if they were charged or if they signed a bail bond they should contact the station and find out.

MagicSean

RareVintage wrote: »

Now I'm confused.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71141210
On that thread from this Marchsomeone says the limit is 80mg/100... hasn't it been changed to 50?
What limit is in current law?

The limit for a breath test is 35. 80 is for a blood test.

RareVintage

Thanks Sean.
If the limit is 35mg/100ml of breath, is the letter of the law "over 35" ie 36 and above. I ask this because if it's the latter then a reading of 71 would be under the "twice over" category...

In my hypothetical case scenario the person was definitely arrested (+ cuffed) but has no docs other than test printout...

MagicSean

RareVintage wrote: »

Thanks Sean.
If the limit is 35mg/100ml of breath, is the letter of the law "over 35" ie 36 and above. I ask this because if it's the latter then a reading of 71 would be under the "twice over" category...

In my hypothetical case scenario the person was definitely arrested (+ cuffed) but has no docs other than test printout...

It has to be over 35. However the limits don't really work the way you suggest. The penalties are on a graduated scale. You can find it here

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driving_offences/drink_driving_offences_in_ireland.html

70 would be in the highest category and would result in a disqualification of 3 years on conviction, assuming it is a first offence.

RareVintage

Sean
It is a first offence (of any kind). 3 years fo 71mg?! And a few years ago wasn't the limit 80 and then the person wouldn't have even failed...
(Personally I'm in favour of the lower limits)

BaronVon

3 years, if convicted, mandatory.

It's also possible this person was released to proceed by way of summons, although unlikely.

Contact the garda station, during a quiet period, and ask them to check the computer for you.
The printout will have the guard who performed the breath test, not necessarily the arresting guard.

BaronVon

With regard to your last point, you can request in court to get all the evidence against you, which would explain the rest of your questions.

Plenty of solicitors in court. If this happened in Dublin, go to Court 54 in the Richmond Hospital, they only deal with drink-driving cases. You can watch them in action.

And I'd definitely ring about the car, it being the arrested person's property.

yayamark

The person who was arrested should calll into the G.S with i.d. and speak to a garda and make the enquires.

Usually a person who gives a breath specimen that exceeds 35mg will be charges and bailed to appear in court, the other option would be a summons to appear in a few months time. This is rare enough.

This person should consult with a sollr who will look for all documentation pertaining to case, this is pretty standard.

RareVintage

thanks yayamark

solicitor sorted in this hypothetical case.

How could it be that, definitely, no charge sheet was given (not even offered and ignored or tossed back)?
Anecdotally, the gards didn't seem sure of what they were doing, so maybe that's why no charge sheet was given over. Now I'm wondering can they type one up later on or must this be done at the time...?

Anyway the person in this hypothetical case will phone them up...

yayamark

Well if no charge sheet was given then i presume that a summons will be issued in the future, there maybe more offences or enquires to make before the Garda proceeds with this incident.

RareVintage

Besides no charge sheet being given I have one other possible anomaly...

according to the citizensinformation.ie page linked to above a person should, after being arrested and taken to the station, be
"informed of their rights by a member (of AGS) in charge of the station. These rights include consulting with a solicitor..."

The person here was no told, read or informed of their rights after arriving at the station (or indeed before...). Is this not a breach of procedure (or even law)?
The person has a coherent recall of events and there was definitely no being informed of their rights at the station.
This seems very odd indeed to me...
That and no paperwork of anykind besides a copy of the machine printout... Are the gardi allowed to make out charge sheets after the fact (a day later)?

MagicSean

Again the rights would have been signed for by the person being arrested and this would be in the custody record.

RareVintage

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Again the rights would have been signed for by the person being arrested and this would be in the custody record.

Are you sure that the person under arrest would sign a document/record as proof that rights were read at the station?
The person signed two copies of intoxilizer print-out, for sure, but is almost certain that they didn't sign any other documents (and was definitely not given any other documents)

MagicSean

RareVintage wrote: »

Are you sure that the person under arrest would sign a document/record as proof that rights were read at the station?
The person signed two copies of intoxilizer print-out, for sure, but is almost certain that they didn't sign any other documents (and was definitely not given any other documents)

They can decline to sign but this would be noted on the custody record.

RareVintage

Thanks again Sean.

I guess the person involved should ask their solicitor to request copies of custody records.
Whilst there is of course the possibility of missing/inaccurate memory as far as I can tell that the person was/is coherent (though upset) and claims not to have even been offered anything other than the test printouts to sign and left custody without being offered (and thus not signing) anything else.

Barring a strange memory lapse (I know it probably isn't that unusual with alcohol and a stressful situation) if things are in fact as I have outlined then it would appear that:
- the arrestee's rights were not properly issued (and recorded and signed for as such)
- that a charge sheet should have been issued (and signed for?) but wasn't.
- Also some kind of bail form should have been issued and signed...?

Maybe a person in such circumstances should instruct their solicitor to look into whether correct procedure was or was not followed and properly recorded...?

MagicSean

RareVintage wrote: »

Thanks again Sean.

I guess the person involved should ask their solicitor to request copies of custody records.
Whilst there is of course the possibility of missing/inaccurate memory as far as I can tell that the person was/is coherent (though upset) and claims not to have even been offered anything other than the test printouts to sign and left custody without being offered (and thus not signing) anything else.

Barring a strange memory lapse (I know it probably isn't that unusual with alcohol and a stressful situation) if things are in fact as I have outlined then it would appear that:
- the arrestee's rights were not properly issued (and recorded and signed for as such)
- that a charge sheet should have been issued (and signed for?) but wasn't.
- Also some kind of bail form should have been issued and signed...?

Maybe a person in such circumstances should instruct their solicitor to look into whether correct procedure was or was not followed and properly recorded...?

A solicitor should look into this stuff without being asked. If not, it's a bad solicitor.

RareVintage

"A solicitor should look into this stuff without being asked. If not, it's a bad solicitor."

Aye, I see that. But I was wondering if I am correct in suggesting that the gardi are in breach - given (and if) the facts are found to be as I described re. no other docs being signed (and no rights read in station).
Hypothetically, I wouldn't want to be thinking about a technical failure of the charge unless I were reasonably sure of what are the obligations upon the gards. As it is, it would seem to me that correct procedure was not followed...

MagicSean

RareVintage wrote: »

"A solicitor should look into this stuff without being asked. If not, it's a bad solicitor."

Aye, I see that. But I was wondering if I am correct in suggesting that the gardi are in breach - given (and if) the facts are found to be as I described re. no other docs being signed (and no rights read in station).
Hypothetically, I wouldn't want to be thinking about a technical failure of the charge unless I were reasonably sure of what are the obligations upon the gards. As it is, it would seem to me that correct procedure was not followed...

To be honest, if the facts where as you have stated, I would be questioning wether the person was arrested by Gardaí or kidnapped by a bunch of lads in uniform and tricked into blowing in a hose while they stole the car.

People have very bad memories of what happened to them in custody.

RareVintage

Haha, well I'm not familiar with the required procedures and you're right, booze & stress do strange things to memory.
Kidnapped by imposters!

We'll see what happens but in a situation like this I would have quizzed the person involved - I wouldn't want to be wasting your time, Sean.
If the gardi in a hypothetical case like this having not issued and had signed the required documents then I would be hoping that the person's solicitor wil have the case thrown out.

There but for the grace of god go I poor thing is, hypothetically, in pieces.
(except that I never drink and drive. I used to after one or two pints but with the new lower limit, and severe consequences of conviction, I wouldn't at all)

jakdelad

RareVintage wrote: »

"A solicitor should look into this stuff without being asked. If not, it's a bad solicitor."

Aye, I see that. But I was wondering if I am correct in suggesting that the gardi are in breach - given (and if) the facts are found to be as I described re. no other docs being signed (and no rights read in station).
Hypothetically, I wouldn't want to be thinking about a technical failure of the charge unless I were reasonably sure of what are the obligations upon the gards. As it is, it would seem to me that correct procedure was not followed...

i asked a legal question on drink driving too
what was i told? oh yes
trying to find loopholes to circumvent the law

RareVintage

It's not a question of "trying to find loopholes", it's a question of law.
The gardi are equal under the law to citizens, not superior. The law applies equally to all (ideally). If the gardi have not acted, in their prosecution, within the law, following due process as they are required to do then the law states that their prosecution is flawed. A judge will adjudicate upon that, also according to the law.

Justice depends upon the agents of the law applying the law according to procedure. Every citizen has the right to expect that and in a case where it can be shown that due process is not followed the judge will not allow the prosecution to proceed or may grant leave to appeal.
It's not loopholes it's expecting, and demanding, fairness. It's a two way thing.

When prosecutions fail on technicalities then hopefully the law enforcers will improve their standards, which is a good thing.
Getting off on a technicality, whilst looking like justice has been done a disservice can equally be seen as doing justice the service of requiring it to uphold its own standards.
It works both ways (but I do take your point...)