Fixed Speeding Offence Possible Inconclusive Location?

francie81

Ok first and foremost I received a speeding ticket by post today which I've duely no problem paying and accepting points for my actions and I always like to think these are as accurate as they say it is.

Here goes I know exactly where I was going that day but I think I may have a case in soo far that I was NOT in the Area that it says on the offence but rather on the street adjacent to it which has a name plus the Area is a mile to the right of it. Am I clutching at straws here?

Francie

MagicSean

So you're saying you do have a problem paying it.

francie81

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

So you're saying you do have a problem paying it.

Do I hear echoes? No what I want to know is if my charge is inaccurate in soo far as the location where I was captured but I guess maybe a solicitor would be the best bet in seeking advice.

Zambia

If the ticket says you where speeding in location X and time Y and you where not in location X at time Y then don't pay(contest) the ticket.

Simple.

Paulw

If you've no problems paying it and accepting the points, then pay it and accept the points. Simple.

If you do have a problem, then feel free to go to court and argue your point. You may find that what you think is area Y is actually still considered by the court to be part of area X and the ticket is valid. You then have a fine plus more points.

It's your risk.

source

OP if there's a little picture of your reg plate on the penalty notice, that means that the rest of the picture is sitting in a filing cabinet in Tipperary waiting for you to say it wasn't you/ you weren't there. The full picture will show your whole car, the driver and the background area.

Kosseegan

Look at Order 38 of the District Court Rules. The time and location of an offence are not material unless the location is outside the district court Area where the charge is being heard. If you contest the ticket be warned that evidence may be given of the correct location at hearing and you will lose.

MagicSean

Kosseegan wrote: »

Look at Order 38 of the District Court Rules. The time and location of an offence are not material unless the location is outside the district court Area where the charge is being heard. If you contest the ticket be warned that evidence may be given of the correct location at hearing and you will lose.

I was wondering that. Saw a state solicitor bring it up in the circuit court yesterday.

Zambia

Kosseegan wrote: »

Look at Order 38 of the District Court Rules. The time and location of an offence are not material unless the location is outside the district court Area where the charge is being heard. If you contest the ticket be warned that evidence may be given of the correct location at hearing and you will lose.

Sorry this just seems wrong how can time and location be witheld from the accused till the hearing? Plus how can the time and location in the case of a speeding ticket be not matieral?

Could you quote that piece of legislation?

shaneybaby

Zambia wrote: »

Sorry this just seems wrong how can time and location be witheld from the accused till the hearing? Plus how can the time and location in the case of a speeding ticket be not matieral?

Could you quote that piece of legislation?

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/d77fd0a1ce7bec2880256d2b0046a066?OpenDocument

Scehdule 1, 1(1)

"Variance between evidence and complaint
1. (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) hereof, in cases of summary jurisdiction no variance between the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof, as to the time at which the offence or cause of complaint is stated to have been committed or to have arisen, shall be deemed material, provided that such information or complaint was in fact made within the time limited by law for making the same; nor shall any variance between the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof, as to the place in which the offence or cause of complaint is stated to have been committed or to have arisen, be deemed material, provided that the said offence or cause of complaint was committed or arose within the jurisdiction of the Judge by whom the case is being heard, or that, the accused resides or in the case of an offence was arrested within such jurisdiction. In any such case the Court may amend the summons, warrant or other document by which the proceedings were originated and proceed to hear and determine the matter."

Magic Beans

shaneybaby wrote: »

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0c609d7abff72c1c80256d2b0045bb64/d77fd0a1ce7bec2880256d2b0046a066?OpenDocument

Scehdule 1, 1(1)

"Variance between evidence and complaint
1. (1) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) hereof, in cases of summary jurisdiction no variance between the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof, as to the time at which the offence or cause of complaint is stated to have been committed or to have arisen, shall be deemed material, provided that such information or complaint was in fact made within the time limited by law for making the same; nor shall any variance between the complaint and the evidence adduced in support thereof, as to the place in which the offence or cause of complaint is stated to have been committed or to have arisen, be deemed material, provided that the said offence or cause of complaint was committed or arose within the jurisdiction of the Judge by whom the case is being heard, or that, the accused resides or in the case of an offence was arrested within such jurisdiction. In any such case the Court may amend the summons, warrant or other document by which the proceedings were originated and proceed to hear and determine the matter."

To the untrained eye the part in bold states that the offence was committed and not the wording was stated to have been committed as it is elsewhere. Is there a presumption that the case is already proven at that point? Is that a flaw in the wording?

Again a layman's question, if the time and place of the alleged offence can be considered immaterial and can be changed as directed by the court does that mean that the defence of alibi is no longer valid? Does this principle apply do non-motoring offences too?

shaneybaby

Magic Beans wrote: »

To the untrained eye the part in bold states that the offence was committed and not the wording was stated to have been committed as it is elsewhere. Is there a presumption that the case is already proven at that point? Is that a flaw in the wording?

Again a layman's question, if the time and place of the alleged offence can be considered immaterial and can be changed as directed by the court does that mean that the defence of alibi is no longer valid? Does this principle apply do non-motoring offences too?

Obviously to be corrected on this but the bit in bold refers to the Judge's jurisdiction. In other words a change of location can't be from Ballyfermot to Ballydehob (west cork;)) but can be from Lower Camden Street to Harolds Cross or something. Basically if it's the street next one down but within the same district court area then it's fine, next county over and there are problems. I don't do much criminal law so feel free to correct me...

Magic Beans

That's what I understood it to mean but isn't it all very weird for want of a better word?

The defendant in his defence, and can prove it, says that he wasn't at "Place X" at "Time Y" when and where the offence was alleged to have been committed but was at "Place Z" at the time. So instead of either refuting or accepting an alibi defence the the location of the offence is moved to "Place Z" thus undermining a reasonable defence.

Forgive my ignorance I am just a Joe Soap but how can that be just?

source

Magic Beans wrote: »

That's what I understood it to mean but isn't it all very weird for want of a better word?

The defendant in his defence, and can prove it, says that he wasn't at "Place X" at "Time Y" when and where the offence was alleged to have been committed but was at "Place Z" at the time. So instead of either refuting or accepting an alibi defence the the location of the offence is moved to "Place Z" thus undermining a reasonable defence.

Forgive my ignorance I am just a Joe Soap but how can that be just?

Here's an example, In Limerick there's a main Street, O'Connell Street. It's very long and what people would call O'Connell Street is actually made up of a number of streets: Rutland Street, Patrick Street, O'Connell Street, The Crescent and Quinlan Street, then you have O'Connell Avenue after that.

If a person is arrested on Quinlan Street, But the summons says O'Connell Street that would be covered under this rule as it's the same place or as near as makes no difference. Official name and local name are in conflict but it's still the same place, the member and defendant know where it happened as does the judge. The case will not fall on this fact because of this rule despite it appearing there is 2 different locations in question.

Kosseegan

Magic Beans wrote: »

That's what I understood it to mean but isn't it all very weird for want of a better word?

The defendant in his defence, and can prove it, says that he wasn't at "Place X" at "Time Y" when and where the offence was alleged to have been committed but was at "Place Z" at the time. So instead of either refuting or accepting an alibi defence the the location of the offence is moved to "Place Z" thus undermining a reasonable defence.

Forgive my ignorance I am just a Joe Soap but how can that be just?

A summons is not evidence of the facts stated on it. It is merely a device to procure the attendance of the Defendant in court. The evidence in the case is the evidence led by the prosecutor. The prosecution can apply to have the summons amended if they notice that there is a difference between their records and the contents of the summons. If the defendant is prejudiced he can object. Unless there are significant variations he will not get much joy. Saying to a judge that "I wasn't speeding at 9.00 it was 10.00" will not produce a dismissal.

Magic Beans

Kosseegan wrote: »

Saying to a judge that "I wasn't speeding at 9.00 it was 10.00" will not produce a dismissal.

Indeed that would be a bit foolhardy but to say "I wasn't speeding at 9.00 as I was in the dentist's chair from 8.45 to 9.30" should produce a dismissal. It almost seems as if the defendant is accused of an offence at an unspecified time in an unspecified location.

Zambia

Thats is pretty much what I was hinting at. If you are accused at speeding at 6.00AM on Leeson St Dublin. But you know you went of the Green that day via Dawson St.

Both Streets are close but they are different streets.

Its surely a principle that the accused can prepare a defence given the facts.

francie81

Ok people heres goes again. Am from Co. Louth and it was more than just myself (sister included) we all happen to be going to the Louth/Meath game hence same day & location, on my ticket it clearly states 'Townspark' when the route I was on happens to be addressed as the 'Kells Rd. (N52)' according to google earth, yes its my car and am breaking the limit but would I still not have a say in this I don't wanna go to a solicitor either to be slapped with a bill just to find out if I'd have a fighting chance who else could advise me because it more than likely it would be a risk if I officially contested it?

Thanks,
Francie

Mr. Presentable

When I was a rural postman "Townspark" was a townland - containing several street addresses.

francie81

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

When I was a rural postman "Townspark" was a townland - containing several street addresses.

Soo no chance?

MagicSean

francie81 wrote: »

Ok people heres goes again. Am from Co. Louth and it was more than just myself (sister included) we all happen to be going to the Louth/Meath game hence same day & location, on my ticket it clearly states 'Townspark' when the route I was on happens to be addressed as the 'Kells Rd. (N52)' according to google earth, yes its my car and am breaking the limit but would I still not have a say in this I don't wanna go to a solicitor either to be slapped with a bill just to find out if I'd have a fighting chance who else could advise me because it more than likely it would be a risk if I officially contested it?

Thanks,
Francie

Afaik Townspark is a large townland in Kells and the N52 goes through the townland

francie81

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Afaik Townspark is a large townland in Kells and the N52 goes through the townland

Ahh rite soo maybe everyone else will probably tell me the same, would it be really worth contesting this or just bite the bullet and pay it?

slimjimmc

If I were you I'd get a nice sweet chilli sauce for that bullet, that way it mightn't taste so bitter when biting down.

francie81

slimjimmc wrote: »

If I were you I'd get a nice sweet chilli sauce for that bullet, that way it mightn't taste so bitter when biting down.

By the sounds of it I doubt you'd need it!:rolleyes:

Jo King

Magic Beans wrote: »

Indeed that would be a bit foolhardy but to say "I wasn't speeding at 9.00 as I was in the dentist's chair from 8.45 to 9.30" should produce a dismissal. It almost seems as if the defendant is accused of an offence at an unspecified time in an unspecified location.

Saying a thing like that will lead to cross examination. I am the owner of car Reg No XXX. I was driving on date. I drove between zzz and xxx.

francie81

Think I'll just go an ask a town clerk.

bath handle

francie81 wrote: »

Think I'll just go an ask a town clerk.

What is a town clerk going to tell you? You are too mean to pay a solicitor, so paying the fixed penalty is your only realistic option.

francie81

bath handle wrote: »

What is a town clerk going to tell you? You are too mean to pay a solicitor, so paying the fixed penalty is your only realistic option.

Well I would think a 'town clerk' should know the boundarys of the town don't you and without actually having to pay a solicitor, common sense.

bath handle

francie81 wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

What is a town clerk going to tell you? You are too mean to pay a solicitor, so paying the fixed penalty is your only realistic option.

Well I would think a 'town clerk' should know the boundarys of the town don't you and without actually having to pay a solicitor, common sense.

So what if he knows the town boundaries? He is not going to be in court to give evidence. Just because you might establish the notice has a wrong location does not mean that you will get off. Read the discussion on order 38 of the District Court rules earlier in this thread.

donutheadhomer

foinse wrote: »

Here's an example, In Limerick there's a main Street, O'Connell Street. It's very long and what people would call O'Connell Street is actually made up of a number of streets: Rutland Street, Patrick Street, O'Connell Street, The Crescent and Quinlan Street, then you have O'Connell Avenue after that.

If a person is arrested on Quinlan Street, But the summons says O'Connell Street that would be covered under this rule as it's the same place or as near as makes no difference. Official name and local name are in conflict but it's still the same place, the member and defendant know where it happened as does the judge. The case will not fall on this fact because of this rule despite it appearing there is 2 different locations in question.

I've heard of someone being before the court in Limerick - was charged with speeding on New Road (ie the Condell Road) but told the judge New Road is actually in Thomandgate (completly different part of city). Judge laughed and threw it out.

Paulw

EurasianBadger wrote: »

I've heard of someone being before the court in Limerick

You heard of??? I've heard of UFOs, but it doesn't mean that they're true. :rolleyes: