Private Estate / Public place

Farmlife · 19-09-2011 7:18pm #1

Can my private housing estate that I pay private management fees for be covered on a summons as "a public place within the said district court area of Dublin metropolitan district" for the purpose of a car not having an nct?

TylerIE · 19-09-2011 7:22pm

rgugliel wrote: »

Can my private housing estate that I pay private management fees for be covered on a summons as "a public place within the said district court area of Dublin metropolitan district" for the purpose of a car not having an nct?

Road Traffic Act 1961

“public place” means any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge;

Is the housing estate behind coded gates, e.g. electric gates or are other people (non residents) able to just drive in ad lib?

coylemj · 19-09-2011 7:23pm

Not sure which act the NCT is covered under, can you quote the law you're alleged to be in breach of? It should be on the summons.

For example, if the local authority doesn't maintain the road then it is not a public road for the purposes of the Finance Acts so you couldn't be done for non-display of a tax disc but if the public have access with vehicles then it is a public place for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1961 so you could be done for driving licence and insurance.

ANSI · 19-09-2011 7:42pm

coylemj wrote: »

Not sure which act the NCT is covered under, can you quote the law you're alleged to be in breach of? It should be on the summons.

For example, if the local authority doesn't maintain the road then it is not a public road for the purposes of the Finance Acts so you couldn't be done for non-display of a tax disc but if the public have access with vehicles then it is a public place for the purposes of the Road Traffic Act 1961 so you could be done for driving licence and insurance.

could you not be done for no tax under road traffic act?

coylemj · 19-09-2011 7:54pm

ANSI wrote: »

could you not be done for no tax under road traffic act?

In the OP's case no. Paying your tax and displaying the disc both come under the Finance Act 1976 and the road has to be a public road meaning it has to be a road the maintenance for which is the responsibility of the local authority.

Same applies to parking your car in a shopping centre, the cops can do you for licence, insurance and drunk driving but not non-display of a tax disc.

Farmlife · 19-09-2011 8:03pm

no gates on the estate, management company maintain the estate. was stopped before i drove out, made general polite comment to gardai that the speed camera placed on the road of the estate was dangerously located.

She didn't like this comment, end result is

not displaying an NCT disc
not producing a NCT cert
not producing Insurance cert (i had insurance, disc in window)
not having insurance (as i didn't produce it they assume i don't have it)
driving with a phone in hand (wasn't driving, was talking to her)

Milk & Honey · 19-09-2011 8:20pm

Do members of the public drive into the estate? Are non residents with vehicles ordered out? Is there any commercial use in the estate whatsoever?

TylerIE · 19-09-2011 8:30pm

rgugliel wrote: »

no gates on the estate, management company maintain the estate. was stopped before i drove out, made general polite comment to gardai that the speed camera placed on the road of the estate was dangerously located.

She didn't like this comment, end result is

not displaying an NCT disc
not producing a NCT cert
not producing Insurance cert (i had insurance, disc in window)
not having insurance (as i didn't produce it they assume i don't have it)
driving with a phone in hand (wasn't driving, was talking to her)

The Garda obviously thought that a vehicle which was being driven without a Valid NCT was also unsafe.

I assume she asked you to produce your documents and you failed or refused.

Its an offence to hold a mobile phone while driving. Its rather odd that just at the moment when you stopped to speak to her you happened to have your phone just in your hand.

Im afraid kind sir that you need more than this forum, a solicitor would be in order.

0O7 · 19-09-2011 8:42pm

Yes... its a public place under the road traffic act.

(iv) by the substitution for the definition of “public place” of the following definition:
“‘public place’ means—
(a) any public road, and
(b) any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge

Farmlife · 19-09-2011 8:42pm

No commercial use to the estate, there's parking for residents but its open up for the public to walk in

coylemj · 19-09-2011 8:46pm

rgugliel wrote: »

driving with a phone in hand (wasn't driving, was talking to her)

TylerIE wrote: »

Its an offence to hold a mobile phone while driving. Its rather odd that just at the moment when you stopped to speak to her you happened to have your phone just in your hand.

Wasn't going to make an issue of the phone but I agree with TylerIE, either you were driving while on the phone or were careless enough to lift the phone out of the cradle or off the passenger seat while talking to the Garda.

Or did it ring while you were talking to her and you answered it?

What you're telling us is that at no stage were you driving a moving car while on the phone so I'm surprised that she has summonsed you for that one.

Can you look at the summons for the NCT offences and tell us which law you're supposedly in breach of?

source · 19-09-2011 8:57pm

rgugliel wrote: »

no gates on the estate, management company maintain the estate. was stopped before i drove out, made general polite comment to gardai that the speed camera placed on the road of the estate was dangerously located.

She didn't like this comment, end result is

not displaying an NCT disc
not producing a NCT cert
not producing Insurance cert (i had insurance, disc in window)
not having insurance (as i didn't produce it they assume i don't have it)
driving with a phone in hand (wasn't driving, was talking to her)

So what you're saying is if you minded your own business and weren't trying to be smart you wouldn't have been stopped and would have gotten away with all of the above offences.

Not displaying a valid NCT disc, and not displaying a valid NCT cert is an offence.

Not producing an insurance cert is also an offence, the disc on the window simply says the end date of the policy, the policy number and the insurance company. The cert gives information on who is permitted to drive and under what circumstances. This is why you're asked to produce the cert.

The offence isn't driving while talking on the phone, it's driving while holding a mobile phone. You drove up to the Garda and had the mobile phone in your hand when you got there, some simple deduction says your were holding your phone while driving.

TylerIE · 19-09-2011 8:57pm

rgugliel wrote: »

no gates on the estate, management company maintain the estate. was stopped before i drove out, made general polite comment to gardai that the speed camera placed on the road of the estate was dangerously located.

She didn't like this comment, end result is

not displaying an NCT disc
not producing a NCT cert
not producing Insurance cert (i had insurance, disc in window)
not having insurance (as i didn't produce it they assume i don't have it)
driving with a phone in hand (wasn't driving, was talking to her)

Also you seem to be just worried about the NCT issue, your failure to produce insurance is itself an offence, even if you are fully insured.

If your engine was running, while talking to the Garda and you were simultaneously holding the phone, while the car was on the road, its not unforeseeable that the judge will uphold the summons.

I can also imagine some judges being particularly impressed with the circumstances in which the offences were detected if it arises in court, so a solicitor would be highly advised!

0O7 · 19-09-2011 8:58pm

rgugliel wrote: »

No commercial use to the estate, there's parking for residents but its open up for the public to walk in

if there is no gates or is not a private dwelling / company then it is a public place in the view of the road traffic Act (more or less)

Go to your solicitor, tell him you want to contest the fact you had no NCT and were stopped in a house estate and you dont feel its a public place... he may just laugh at you tho

coylemj · 19-09-2011 9:00pm

0O7 wrote: »

Yes... its a public place under the road traffic act.

(iv) by the substitution for the definition of “public place” of the following definition:
“‘public place’ means—
(a) any public road, and
(b) any street, road or other place to which the public have access with vehicles whether as of right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge

I think given that there are no gates that it is a public place under the RTA.

Milk & Honey · 19-09-2011 9:01pm

The right of access by the public, must be the public at large. It is not sufficient that a section only of the public can access the car park. In a shopping centre for example any member of the public can drive in for the purpose of visiting the shops. It may be possible to argue that only residents and their invitees can drive in and park in the estate. In that case it would not be a public place.
It appears that the o/p had driven up to the exit from the estate and was stopped by the garda. He was probably stopped with the engine running, and so was driving. If the public place defence was to hold up he would be in the clear. There might be a chance with an easygoing judge.

0O7 · 19-09-2011 9:02pm

coylemj wrote: »

I think given that there are no gates that it is a public place under the RTA.

public car parks - multi story etc have gate sand are a public place....

0O7 · 19-09-2011 9:05pm

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The right of access by the public, must be the public at large. It is not sufficient that a section only of the public can access the car park. In a shopping centre for example any member of the public can drive in for the purpose of visiting the shops. It may be possible to argue that only residents and their invitees can drive in and park in the estate. In that case it would not be a public place.
It appears that the o/p had driven up to the exit from the estate and was stopped by the garda. He was probably stopped with the engine running, and so was driving. If the public place defence was to hold up he would be in the clear. There might be a chance with an easygoing judge.

No. its 100% a public place...

TylerIE · 19-09-2011 9:07pm

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The right of access by the public, must be the public at large. It is not sufficient that a section only of the public can access the car park. In a shopping centre for example any member of the public can drive in for the purpose of visiting the shops. It may be possible to argue that only residents and their invitees can drive in and park in the estate. In that case it would not be a public place.
It appears that the o/p had driven up to the exit from the estate and was stopped by the garda. He was probably stopped with the engine running, and so was driving. If the public place defence was to hold up he would be in the clear. There might be a chance with an easygoing judge.

OP if you choose to pursue this defense then please put your court date up. Id love to see it or at least read the newspapers report! I imagine utilizing such a defense would just seriously annoy a busy judge!

The OP wasnt stopped by the Garda either, it was the other way around, he approached the Garda.

coylemj · 19-09-2011 9:07pm

0O7 wrote: »

public car parks - multi story etc have gate sand are a public place....

That's not really relevant, we are talking about a private housing estate which if it had gates that restricted entry to cardholders or people with a entry code could not be considered a public place under the RTA while clearly a public car park (with or without a barrier) is a public place.

There isn't anybody claiming that his estate is not a public place under the RTA so I really don't see why we've gone off on this tangent.

Farmlife · 19-09-2011 9:08pm

i didn't say it in a rude way, but where the tripod was was dangerous and i just had to say something, paying for it now i know.

when i said it she let off a roar and asked for my driving licence, i saw the "road she was going down" so i got out of my car took a photo of where the tripod was on the road, with my phone, and when i was getting back in the car i was holding the phone

source · 19-09-2011 9:08pm

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The right of access by the public, must be the public at large. It is not sufficient that a section only of the public can access the car park. In a shopping centre for example any member of the public can drive in for the purpose of visiting the shops. It may be possible to argue that only residents and their invitees can drive in and park in the estate. In that case it would not be a public place.
It appears that the o/p had driven up to the exit from the estate and was stopped by the garda. He was probably stopped with the engine running, and so was driving. If the public place defence was to hold up he would be in the clear. There might be a chance with an easygoing judge.

A public place under the RTA is any place that a member of the public has access to with a vehicle whether by right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge.

Meaning that everything you posted above is completely wrong.

coylemj · 19-09-2011 9:13pm

rgugliel wrote: »

i didn't say it in a rude way, but where the tripod was was dangerous and i just had to say something, paying for it now i know.

when i said it she let off a roar and asked for my driving licence, i saw the "road she was going down" so i got out of my car took a photo of where the tripod was on the road, with my phone, and when i was getting back in the car i was holding the phone

Was the speed camera pointing in the opposite direction to you when you were driving out of the estate? You could report her for malicious prosecution because it sounds to me like she was looking for speeding cars and she flipped when you challenged her on the position of the camera so she threw the book at you.

You could either report her to the local Super and ask to have the charges withdrawn or take it up with the Garda Ombudsman.

PCPhoto · 19-09-2011 9:13pm

rgugliel wrote: »

no gates on the estate, management company maintain the estate. was stopped before i drove out, made general polite comment to gardai that the speed camera placed on the road of the estate was dangerously located.

She didn't like this comment, end result is

not displaying an NCT disc
not producing a NCT cert
not producing Insurance cert (i had insurance, disc in window)
not having insurance (as i didn't produce it they assume i don't have it)
driving with a phone in hand (wasn't driving, was talking to her)

when you encountered the Garda did she tell you that you had to produce documentation ? or did you get the court summons before you knew what was going on ?

My understanding of the law regarding mobile phones is that if its in your hand and the engine is on you are open to prosecution - but its simply the case of the word of a Garda versus your own.

if you goto court - make sure you get a solicitor - if possible take photos of the area to indicate where the Garda Camera was positioned (its possible they were on private grounds and thus making everything illegal - hugely embarrasing for them if they were - and the media got wind of it ahead of time...I can assist there if you need)

MagicSean · 19-09-2011 9:18pm

PCPhoto wrote: »

when you encountered the Garda did she tell you that you had to produce documentation ? or did you get the court summons before you knew what was going on ?

My understanding of the law regarding mobile phones is that if its in your hand and the engine is on you are open to prosecution - but its simply the case of the word of a Garda versus your own.

if you goto court - make sure you get a solicitor - if possible take photos of the area to indicate where the Garda Camera was positioned (its possible they were on private grounds and thus making everything illegal - hugely embarrasing for them if they were - and the media got wind of it ahead of time...I can assist there if you need)

How would it make everything illegal?

0O7 · 19-09-2011 9:19pm

coylemj wrote: »

That's not really relevant, we are talking about a private housing estate which if it had gates that restricted entry to cardholders or people with a entry code could not be considered a public place under the RTA while clearly a public car park (with or without a barrier) is a public place.

There isn't anybody claiming that his estate is not a public place under the RTA so I really don't see why we've gone off on this tangent.

Sorry, you said that if it had no gates then its a public place....

public places can have gates too is all i was stating.

TylerIE · 19-09-2011 9:24pm

coylemj wrote: »

Was the speed camera pointing in the opposite direction to you when you were driving out of the estate? You could report her for malicious prosecution because it sounds to me like she was looking for speeding cars and she flipped when you challenged her on the position of the camera so she threw the book at you.

You could either report her to the local Super and ask to have the charges withdrawn or take it up with the Garda Ombudsman.

Coylemj I value your contribution to the boards so dont get me wrong but the OP engaged with a Garda who then detected offences involving the OPs vehicle. The OP helped antagonise the situation by getting out and taking a photo. The Gardai have a difficult job to do, making a frivolous complaint to the GSOC or super over a simple road traffic offence isnt really helping anybody, especially when the OP is guilty.

If the super drops the charges its a bit like the African thing of "I got charged because I didnt pay my bribe, Il blackmail the police to drop the charge or I'l complain".

The OP may be best speaking to a solicitor and possibly following it up with an apology to the Garda in question, along with producing his insurance certificate that covered him that day.

coylemj · 19-09-2011 9:24pm

0O7 wrote: »

Sorry, you said that if it had no gates then its a public place....

public places can have gates too is all i was stating.

I think we're in agreement but just to clarify, what I meant was that in the case of a housing estate the presence of locked gates would rule out the place being considered a public place under the RTA.

Even if there was gates, if they were open at the time it would probably be considered a public place, similar to a hotel or shopping centre during opening hours.

McCrack · 19-09-2011 9:38pm

coylemj wrote: »

Was the speed camera pointing in the opposite direction to you when you were driving out of the estate? You could report her for malicious prosecution because it sounds to me like she was looking for speeding cars and she flipped when you challenged her on the position of the camera so she threw the book at you.

You could either report her to the local Super and ask to have the charges withdrawn or take it up with the Garda Ombudsman.

That's just entirely off the wall.

Farmlife · 19-09-2011 9:38pm

TylerIE wrote: »

Coylemj I value your contribution to the boards so dont get me wrong but the OP engaged with a Garda who then detected offences involving the OPs vehicle. The OP helped antagonise the situation by getting out and taking a photo. The Gardai have a difficult job to do, making a frivolous complaint to the GSOC or super over a simple road traffic offence isnt really helping anybody, especially when the OP is guilty.

I understand the garda have a hard job, but when operating speed detection checks the priority is safety, and when they place equipment in a dangerous position it make all further actions pointless.

i think i'll speak to the garda first as the process of making a complaint about her will just waist time for me and for her, thanks for all the help, at least im clear now on the private estate thing

MagicSean · 19-09-2011 9:41pm

How exactly was the speed gun located dangerously?

Guy:Incognito · 19-09-2011 9:49pm

rgugliel wrote: »

i think i'll speak to the garda first as the process of making a complaint about her will just waist time for me and for her, thanks for all the help, at least im clear now on the private estate thing

What outcome are you looking for here? You dont complain about her if she cancels the summons ?

I can't see a Gard reacting well to a threat.

Regardless of what she was doing at the time, the things you got the summons for are valid.

coylemj · 19-09-2011 10:03pm

Regardless of whether the OP was guilty of those offences, there is still such a thing as malicious prosecution which is where you invoke the law against someone out of spite i.e. malice.

I see it as follows....

1. The OP was leaving his estate and he saw a Garda operating a speed camera which he considered was in a dangerous position. Bear in mind that the OP lives in the area so he is probably more familiar with the traffic patterns in the area than a Garda who probably covers the whole of Dublin city and isn't as familiar as the OP with the area.

2. If the OP had kept his opinion to himself he would not have been stopped by the Garda because he was leaving the estate and driving on to the public road so wouldn't have had a chance to get above the speed limit.

3. When the OP pulled his car over and suggested to the Garda that she was operating the camera in a dangerous location, instead of considering the merits of what he said, she immediately demanded driving licence, insurance etc. etc. and threw the book at him.

A clear case of malicious prosecution m'lud.

OP, I see no point whatsoever in discussing the case direct with the Garda, she is not going to admit she was wrong, you need to go over her head.

Guy:Incognito · 19-09-2011 10:06pm

coylemj wrote: »

Regardless of whether the OP was guilty of those offences, there is still such a thing as malicious prosecution which is where you invoke the law against someone out of spite i.e. malice.

I see it as follows....

1. The OP was leaving his estate and he saw a Garda operating a speed camera which he considered was in a dangerous position. Bear in mind that the OP lives in the area so he is probably more familiar with the traffic patterns in the area than a Garda who probably covers the whole of Dublin city and isn't as familiar as the OP with the area.

2. If the OP had kept his opinion to himself he would not have been stopped by the Garda because he was leaving the estate and driving on to the public road so wouldn't have had a chance to get above the speed limit.

3. When the OP pulled his car over and suggested to the Garda that she was operating the camera in a dangerous location, instead of considering the merits of what he said, she immediately demanded driving licence, insurance etc. etc. and threw the book at him.

A clear case of malicious prosecution m'lud.

OP, I see no point whatsoever in discussing the case direct with the Garda, she is not going to admit she was wrong, you need to go over her head.

So are you suggesting the Gard should ignore anything illegal going on with a car that approaches them to give out and only pull people up on stuff if its the Gard that approaches the person in the car?

Farmlife · 19-09-2011 10:09pm

the outcome i'm looking for is to have this go away, by whatever means needed.

Guy:Incognito · 19-09-2011 10:11pm

rgugliel wrote: »

the outcome i'm looking for is to have this go away, by whatever means needed.

Seriously ? While I'd love to be there to see it happen, I obviously wont be so it's no gain for me for it to happen, I really dont think you want to go in and try to blackmail a Gard (which is what it is if what I said above is what you intend doing). A summons for no NCT woudl be the least of your worries.

Have you NCT'd it yet btw?

coylemj · 19-09-2011 10:13pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So are you suggesting the Gard should ignore anything illegal going on with a car that approaches them to give out and only pull people up on stuff if its the Gard that approaches the person in the car?

It is not good practice for members of the Garda to react in the way that one did. On the other hand the OP didn't help his case by driving a car with no NCT sticker on the window so I guess there's faults on both sides.

McCrack · 19-09-2011 10:15pm

coylemj wrote: »

Regardless of whether the OP was guilty of those offences, there is still such a thing as malicious prosecution which is where you invoke the law against someone out of spite i.e. malice.

I see it as follows....

1. The OP was leaving his estate and he saw a Garda operating a speed camera which he considered was in a dangerous position. Bear in mind that the OP lives in the area so he is probably more familiar with the traffic patterns in the area than a Garda who probably covers the whole of Dublin city and isn't as familiar as the OP with the area.

2. If the OP had kept his opinion to himself he would not have been stopped by the Garda because he was leaving the estate and driving on to the public road so wouldn't have had a chance to get above the speed limit.

3. When the OP pulled his car over and suggested to the Garda that she was operating the camera in a dangerous location, instead of considering the merits of what he said, she immediately demanded driving licence, insurance etc. etc. and threw the book at him.

A clear case of malicious prosecution m'lud.

OP, I see no point whatsoever in discussing the case direct with the Garda, she is not going to admit she was wrong, you need to go over her head.

Incorrect & nonsense and I mean that as respectfully as possible.

What the Garda was doing at the time and she could have been scratching her arse for all the difference it would make, does not matter one bit in her subsequently detecting the offences the OP has been accused.

What you have suggested ("a clear case of malicious prosecution") is irrational and wrong.

Farmlife · 19-09-2011 10:16pm

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

So are you suggesting the Gard should ignore anything illegal going on with a car that approaches them to give out and only pull people up on stuff if its the Gard that approaches the person in the car?

If you were walking down the street and made a valid point to a gards lack of public safety, they stopped the reason why they were there in the first place and proceeded to search your person for restricted goods would you find this acceptable? only difference is they searched my car for faults

Guy:Incognito · 19-09-2011 10:18pm

rgugliel wrote: »

If you were walking down the street and made a valid point to a gards lack of public safety, they stopped the reason why they were there in the first place and proceeded to search your person for restricted goods would you find this acceptable? only difference is they searched my car for faults

If i was carrying a kilo of coke and the Gard had reason to suspect i did then it's my own fault tbh.

Looking at your car windscreen in a public place is not the same as searching someone anyway imo.

source · 19-09-2011 10:19pm

coylemj wrote: »

Regardless of whether the OP was guilty of those offences, there is still such a thing as malicious prosecution which is where you invoke the law against someone out of spite i.e. malice.

I see it as follows....

1. The OP was leaving his estate and he saw a Garda operating a speed camera which he considered was in a dangerous position. Bear in mind that the OP lives in the area so he is probably more familiar with the traffic patterns in the area than a Garda who probably covers the whole of Dublin city and isn't as familiar as the OP with the area.

2. If the OP had kept his opinion to himself he would not have been stopped by the Garda because he was leaving the estate and driving on to the public road so wouldn't have had a chance to get above the speed limit.

3. When the OP pulled his car over and suggested to the Garda that she was operating the camera in a dangerous location, instead of considering the merits of what he said, she immediately demanded driving licence, insurance etc. etc. and threw the book at him.

A clear case of malicious prosecution m'lud.

OP, I see no point whatsoever in discussing the case direct with the Garda, she is not going to admit she was wrong, you need to go over her head.

The Garda is out there to detect any and all offences. If someone is silly enough to approach the Garda while they are working knowing that their documentation on their car is not up to date, and while holding their phone.

A Garda is not going to not prosecute just because the person is giving out to them about something. The offences still stand.

Solicitor: A clear case of malicious prosecution m'lud.

Judge: Is this true Garda

Garda: Yes it is true that the accused approached me in his car to make a complaint while holding his mobile phone, I then asked for his driving licence and then observed that he didn't have a valid NCT or tax disc. I then requested that he produce his NCT certificate and his insurance certificate within 10 days at a Garda station of his choice. He failed to do this so I issued summonses for all offences outlined.

Judge: convicted.......fines etc....

MagicSean · 19-09-2011 10:22pm

rgugliel wrote: »

If you were walking down the street and made a valid point to a gards lack of public safety, they stopped the reason why they were there in the first place and proceeded to search your person for restricted goods would you find this acceptable? only difference is they searched my car for faults

You brought her attention to you at which point she noticed you were committing more than one offence. There's nothing malicious about it. I've had people threaten to make nonsense complaints about me unless I dropped charges. It doesn't go well for them. If you want to make a complaint then do. Blackmail will not end well for you though.

McCrack · 19-09-2011 10:23pm

rgugliel wrote: »

If you were walking down the street and made a valid point to a gards lack of public safety, they stopped the reason why they were there in the first place and proceeded to search your person for restricted goods would you find this acceptable? only difference is they searched my car for faults

It's not the same, the former cant happen unless a Garda invokes a statutory power to search your person, the latter can happen because the fact you are driving a vehicle will allow a Garda stop, demand license, seek production of documents, inspect the vehicle, look at the discs, FPN you if you are carrying/using a mobile phone etc, all contained in a vast body of road traffic legislation.

bath handle · 19-09-2011 10:30pm

source wrote: »

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The right of access by the public, must be the public at large. It is not sufficient that a section only of the public can access the car park. In a shopping centre for example any member of the public can drive in for the purpose of visiting the shops. It may be possible to argue that only residents and their invitees can drive in and park in the estate. In that case it would not be a public place.
It appears that the o/p had driven up to the exit from the estate and was stopped by the garda. He was probably stopped with the engine running, and so was driving. If the public place defence was to hold up he would be in the clear. There might be a chance with an easygoing judge.

A public place under the RTA is any place that a member of the public has access to with a vehicle whether by right or by permission and whether subject to or free of charge.

Meaning that everything you posted above is completely wrong.

Are you familiar with the case of Stenbridge v Healy 1985? There is a good chance it would not be held to be a public place. if i drive in there and sit in my car for the day, i am a trespasses and i Canada will ne ejected.

Victor · 20-09-2011 4:15am

bath handle wrote: »

Are you familiar with the case of Stenbridge v Healy 1985? There is a good chance it would not be held to be a public place. if i drive in there and sit in my car for the day, i am a trespasses and i Canada will ne ejected.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but we aren't in Canada.

Based on the facts stated, it is a public place for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts.

page1 · 20-09-2011 7:12am

Victor wrote: »

bath handle wrote: »

Are you familiar with the case of Stenbridge v Healy 1985? There is a good chance it would not be held to be a public place. if i drive in there and sit in my car for the day, i am a trespasses and i Canada will ne ejected.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, but we aren't in Canada.

Based on the facts stated, it is a public place for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts.

I think he meant to write " can and will be ejected" and it came up as Canada. Probably on an iPhone.

Milk & Honey · 20-09-2011 8:06am

Grafton Street in Dublin is not a public place for the purpose of the RTA so I think it is far from a foregone conclusion that a private estate is.

Victor · 20-09-2011 8:24am

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Grafton Street in Dublin is not a public place for the purpose of the RTA so I think it is far from a foregone conclusion that a private estate is.

What is your basis for this statement?

source · 20-09-2011 8:28am

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Grafton Street in Dublin is not a public place for the purpose of the RTA so I think it is far from a foregone conclusion that a private estate is.

Grafton Street is a pedestrian street where traffic is not routinely permitted.

A housing estate is an area where traffic IS routinely permitted. You're comparing chalk and cheese in an effort to prove your argument.

There is also an argument on pedestrian streets, that traffic is permitted at certain hours this means that at certain times members of the public have permission to drive on the street, making it a public place under the definition in the principle Act.

Kosseegan · 20-09-2011 2:30pm

source wrote: »

Grafton Street is a pedestrian street where traffic is not routinely permitted.

A housing estate is an area where traffic IS routinely permitted. You're comparing chalk and cheese in an effort to prove your argument.

There is also an argument on pedestrian streets, that traffic is permitted at certain hours this means that at certain times members of the public have permission to drive on the street, making it a public place under the definition in the principle Act.

Traffic is not routinely permitted in private housing estates. People who live there, people who own units there and their invitees are allowed to drive cars in and park them. The public at large have no right of access. Even if there is no physical barrier to stop a person driving in, they are nevertheless a trespasser and not availing of a legal right.

[1985] I.L.R.M. 290 Claire Stanbridge v Declan Healy and By Order Messrs Ensign Motor Policies at Lloyds (Notice Party)

It is plain from the terms of the definition that the class of road intended is wider than the class of public roads to which the public has access by virtue of a positive right belonging to the public and flowing either from the statute or from prescriptive user. A road may therefore be within the definition:

(1) Although it belongs to the class of private roads and,

(2) although all that can be said with regard to its availability to the public is that the public has access to it.

I think that, when the statute speaks of ‘the public’ in this connection, what is meant is the public generally, and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go to the farmhouse or any part of the farm itself; were it otherwise, the definition might just as well have included all private roads as well as all public highways.

The important part of that statement is his reference to his interpretation of the meaning of the words ‘the public’ which he interprets as meaning the public generally and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go to the farmhouse or any part of the farm itself.

It is quite clear from the evidence of Mr Lynch that the public generally do not have any access to the lands of Corduffstown House either as of right or by permission.

MagicSean · 20-09-2011 3:23pm

Kosseegan wrote: »

Traffic is not routinely permitted in private housing estates. People who live there, people who own units there and their invitees are allowed to drive cars in and park them. The public at large have no right of access. Even if there is no physical barrier to stop a person driving in, they are nevertheless a trespasser and not availing of a legal right.

[1985] I.L.R.M. 290 Claire Stanbridge v Declan Healy and By Order Messrs Ensign Motor Policies at Lloyds (Notice Party)

It is plain from the terms of the definition that the class of road intended is wider than the class of public roads to which the public has access by virtue of a positive right belonging to the public and flowing either from the statute or from prescriptive user. A road may therefore be within the definition:

(1) Although it belongs to the class of private roads and,

(2) although all that can be said with regard to its availability to the public is that the public has access to it.

I think that, when the statute speaks of ‘the public’ in this connection, what is meant is the public generally, and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go to the farmhouse or any part of the farm itself; were it otherwise, the definition might just as well have included all private roads as well as all public highways.

The important part of that statement is his reference to his interpretation of the meaning of the words ‘the public’ which he interprets as meaning the public generally and not the special class of members of the public who have occasion for business or social purposes to go to the farmhouse or any part of the farm itself.

It is quite clear from the evidence of Mr Lynch that the public generally do not have any access to the lands of Corduffstown House either as of right or by permission.

But anyone can park there. A person going to the shop down the road can park there and do their shopping and come back. There would have to be some restriction barring the public; gates, permits barriers, even a sign.

Private Estate / Public place

Comments