Fined twice for the same offence?

Marty McFly · 03-09-2011 3:20pm #1

Hi and thanks for taking the time to read this post.

I got a fine in the pot yesterday as i was down in a stags in kilkenny about two months ago and yes i wrongly urinated in an alleyway I know what I done was against the law and there fore accept ill be fined. But I was thrown in the cell for a few hours released without a charge sheet which I thought you got when you were recieving a charge of fine? Then I also got two fines today both for the exact same time in the same place for differant offences, one for disorderly conduct in a public place ( night time) and the other for intoxication in a public place contrary to section 4, im wondering car you recive two seperate fines for the same thing?

houseplant · 03-09-2011 3:27pm

They are not the same thing. One is for disorderly conduct in a public place (pi**ing on the street) and the other is intoxication in a public place (drunk). Or am I missing something?

NoQuarter · 03-09-2011 3:30pm

Aaah, username so apt! Hard luck buddy!

Ken. · 03-09-2011 3:33pm

Yes you can be done for both things. I have a friend who was found after a nightclub passed out half on the street and half on the road and got 2 summonses, 1 for being drunk on the path and the other for being drunk on the road.

Marty McFly · 03-09-2011 3:55pm

Okay well that clears that up, was just curious now ive to work out how to pay the fecking fines, wasnt aware you could get charged twice at the exact same time both for 2.33 a.m or thought if i had of got charged I wouldve recieved a charge sheet on the night. (biting my lip to not go on a rant:p)

NoQuarter · 03-09-2011 4:02pm

I suggest you raise the defence of intoxication for your intoxication in a public place charge!

houseplant · 03-09-2011 4:40pm

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Okay well that clears that up, was just curious now ive to work out how to pay the fecking fines, wasnt aware you could get charged twice at the exact same time both for 2.33 a.m or thought if i had of got charged I wouldve recieved a charge sheet on the night. (biting my lip to not go on a rant:p)

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY OFFENCE! You have been fined for both. You could have been charged and then bailed to appear before the courts but you have been given the opportunity to pay a fine instead. If you would prefer to go to court then don't pay the fine. Simples

Marty McFly · 03-09-2011 4:47pm

houseplant wrote: »

YOU HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANY OFFENCE! You have been fined for both. You could have been charged and then bailed to appear before the courts but you have been given the opportunity to pay a fine instead. If you would prefer to go to court then don't pay the fine. Simples

:rolleyes: I posted this thread to ask for advice all of which was appreciated but less of the attitude please.

Bowlardo · 03-09-2011 4:56pm

Where did you get caught?

Marty McFly · 03-09-2011 5:01pm

Bowlardo wrote: »

Where did you get caught?

Ah down some alleyway near morisons i think it was, I was right in the middle of it when i look to my right and see the Garda van with two gards sitting in it looking right at me, the defence of you gotta go when you gotta go, coulnt hold it. They werent buying

.

ninjasurfer1 · 03-09-2011 5:10pm

lucyfur09 wrote: »

Yes you can be done for both things. I have a friend who was found after a nightclub passed out half on the street and half on the road and got 2 summonses, 1 for being drunk on the path and the other for being drunk on the road.

Thats ridiculous!! Just a money making racket. :mad:

kbell · 03-09-2011 5:53pm

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

Thats ridiculous!! Just a money making racket. :mad:

Two offenses = Two summonses

Finnbar01 · 03-09-2011 6:07pm

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Ah down some alleyway near morisons i think it was, I was right in the middle of it when i look to my right and see the Garda van with two gards sitting in it looking right at me, the defence of you gotta go when you gotta go, coulnt hold it. They werent buying .

You should have told them you were pregnant.

ninjasurfer1 · 03-09-2011 8:43pm

kbell wrote: »

Two offenses = Two summonses

Surely there was only one offense - That of being drunk in public?

The person was

"passed out half on the street and half on the road and got 2 summonses, 1 for being drunk on the path and the other for being drunk on the road".

Both the road and path are in public. Surely that's only one summons for being drunk in public?

It comes across as nothing but a money making scheme.

angeline · 03-09-2011 10:28pm

Two offences were committed at the same time. The OP was intoxicated in a public place (Section 4 Public Order Act 1994) and urinated in public (Section 5 Public Order Act).

ninjasurfer1 · 03-09-2011 11:56pm

angeline wrote: »

Two offences were committed at the same time. The OP was intoxicated in a public place (Section 4 Public Order Act 1994) and urinated in public (Section 5 Public Order Act).

Not sure if this is related to my post, but I was commenting on post no:4 :

"Yes you can be done for both things. I have a friend who was found after a nightclub passed out half on the street and half on the road and got 2 summonses, 1 for being drunk on the path and the other for being drunk on the road. "

Only one offence there that i can see - That of intoxication in a public place, yet the person got fined twice!!

CrackisWhack · 04-09-2011 12:02am

angeline wrote: »

Two offences were committed at the same time. The OP was intoxicated in a public place (Section 4 Public Order Act 1994) and urinated in public (Section 5 Public Order Act).

Sure who hasn't been intoxicated in a public place? Daft law.

blueythebear · 04-09-2011 12:32am

CrackisWhack wrote: »

Sure who hasn't been intoxicated in a public place? Daft law.

It'd be daft if the law was merely to make it an offence to be intoxicated in a public place. If you look up S4, you'll see that it's an offence to be in a public place and intoxicated to such an extent as to be a danger to oneself and/or others.

Not so daft in my opinion.

ResearchWill · 04-09-2011 12:50am

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

Not sure if this is related to my post, but I was commenting on post no:4 :

Only one offence there that i can see - That of intoxication in a public place, yet the person got fined twice!!

First offence section 4 public order, second offence section 59 road traffic act 1968,

Marty McFly · 04-09-2011 6:32am

blueythebear wrote: »

It'd be daft if the law was merely to make it an offence to be intoxicated in a public place. If you look up S4, you'll see that it's an offence to be in a public place and intoxicated to such an extent as to be a danger to oneself and/or others.

Not so daft in my opinion.

Well it is kinda daft as I certainly wasnt a danger to anyone myself or anyone else for that matter. Intoxicated in a public place is just silly so its ok to serve alcohol in a public house but not to be intoxicted in a public place So to get get from the pub to your home youll have to be in a public place at some stage.

Dont we already have drunk and disorderly? Its looks like its just another case of adding a law for the sake of it.

MagicSean · 04-09-2011 6:38am

Have you even read the public order act? Section 4 is intoxication to such an extent as to be a danger to yourself or others. Section 5 is disorderly conduct. Two completely different offences

Marty McFly · 04-09-2011 6:42am

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Have you even read the public order act? Section 4 is intoxication to such an extent as to be a danger to yourself or others. Section 5 is disorderly conduct. Two completely different offences

Clearly not as im on here asking questions. Yes but what im saying I can say with a guarantee I wasnt a danger to anyone or myself.

Oranage2 · 04-09-2011 7:38am

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Clearly not as im on here asking questions. Yes but what im saying I can say with a guarantee I wasnt a danger to anyone or myself.

Cops usually just make up charges the more you act the d!ck with them -

2 summons on 2 different days tells me you did not not act like an ar*sehole.

ResearchWill · 04-09-2011 9:30am

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Well it is kinda daft as I certainly wasnt a danger to anyone myself or anyone else for that matter. Intoxicated in a public place is just silly so its ok to serve alcohol in a public house but not to be intoxicted in a public place So to get get from the pub to your home youll have to be in a public place at some stage.

Dont we already have drunk and disorderly? Its looks like its just another case of adding a law for the sake of it.

It is also an offence for a publican to allow a intoxicated person in the pub go figure.

Is it only now you have figured out we have too many laws, it's scary when you actually look at the criminal law.

CrackisWhack · 04-09-2011 10:24am

blueythebear wrote: »

It'd be daft if the law was merely to make it an offence to be intoxicated in a public place. If you look up S4, you'll see that it's an offence to be in a public place and intoxicated to such an extent as to be a danger to oneself and/or others.

Not so daft in my opinion.

It's very subjective, I mean charging somebody because they may be a danger?

blueythebear · 04-09-2011 12:19pm

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Well it is kinda daft as I certainly wasnt a danger to anyone myself or anyone else for that matter.

You don't decide whether you could be a danger to another person or yourself. It's based on the opinion of the Garda involved who obvioulsy thought so.

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Intoxicated in a public place is just silly so its ok to serve alcohol in a public house but not to be intoxicted in a public place So to get get from the pub to your home youll have to be in a public place at some stage.

You are again conveniently leaving out the big issue, being a danger to yourself or anyone else. There is no problem with being intoxicated in a public place unless that intoxication is so severe that a Garda forms the opinion that you are a danger to yourself or others.

luvbulmers01 wrote: »

Dont we already have drunk and disorderly? Its looks like its just another case of adding a law for the sake of it.

Have you read any of the previous posts? S4 and S5 are completely different offences. If you're falling around the place drunk and liable to fall into the road and get run over, you could be done under S4. If you are drunk and being an ass****, then S5 applies. Read the Criminal Justice (Public Order Offences) Act 1994.

blueythebear · 04-09-2011 12:21pm

CrackisWhack wrote: »

It's very subjective, I mean charging somebody because they may be a danger?

It is subjective alright but it's not feasible to measure blood/alcohol content to determine this. Everyone reacts differently to varying amounts of alcohol so it must be a Garda that decides whether you could be a danger to yourself/others. I don't see any other way of doing it.

mlumley · 04-09-2011 12:24pm

Bowlardo wrote: »

Where did you get caught?

He got caught "short".;)

MagicSean · 04-09-2011 12:53pm

This thread really shows how ignorant most Irish people are of the basic laws they are governed by. Those of you yammering on about made up laws should really read the public order act before talking more ****e.

dermot_sheehan · 04-09-2011 3:29pm

Just looking at s. 4 of the 1994 public order act and s 59 of the Road Traffic Act 1968.

The two offences appear to have identical elements of the offence so a plea of autre fois convict should be a bar to conviction on the second summons.

ResearchWill · 04-09-2011 3:34pm

dermot_sheehan wrote: »

Just looking at s. 4 of the 1994 public order act and s 59 of the Road Traffic Act 1968.

The two offences appear to have identical elements of the offence so a plea of autre fois convict should be a bar to conviction on the second summons.

I was thinking that when looking at the sections, but i could think of no other possible combination of charges.

angeline · 04-09-2011 4:48pm

This has nothing to do with Section 59. If you are found urinating in public, it falls under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1994 (disorderly conduct). The 2nd offence was Section 4. So, yes, two offences were committed at the same time. In fact, you could commit 5 or 6 offences at the same time......

ResearchWill · 04-09-2011 7:31pm

angeline wrote: »

This has nothing to do with Section 59. If you are found urinating in public, it falls under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1994 (disorderly conduct). The 2nd offence was Section 4. So, yes, two offences were committed at the same time. In fact, you could commit 5 or 6 offences at the same time......

I was replying to another poster who said his friend was fined for two offences, and he was asleep half on the road and half on the footpath, I was not dealing with the OP.

The other poster was lucyfur09 who posted "Yes you can be done for both things. I have a friend who was found after a nightclub passed out half on the street and half on the road and got 2 summonses, 1 for being drunk on the path and the other for being drunk on the road."

dermot_sheehan · 04-09-2011 7:53pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

angeline wrote: »

This has nothing to do with Section 59. If you are found urinating in public, it falls under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1994 (disorderly conduct). The 2nd offence was Section 4. So, yes, two offences were committed at the same time. In fact, you could commit 5 or 6 offences at the same time......

I was replying to another poster who said his friend was fined for two offences, and he was asleep half on the road and half on the footpath, I was not dealing with the OP.

The other poster was lucyfur09 who posted "Yes you can be done for both things. I have a friend who was found after a nightclub passed out half on the street and half on the road and got 2 summonses, 1 for being drunk on the path and the other for being drunk on the road."

My fault, i was replying to lucyfur09s postfrom my phone and it didnt quote her post for some reason.

Fined twice for the same offence?

Comments