Looking for advice : Driving while disqualified.

grahaha

Hello everyone,
I am looking for a bit of advice here, because I have serious trouble understanding all the law talk in the various Road Traffic Acts.

The story in short. My fiance was disqualified from driving for three years (drunk driving) just a few months ago. Today he was caught driving, obviously without a valid licence. (on our way to a nearby industrial estate where I was to practice driving as I got my learner permit just few weeks ago, but anyway, that's no excuse) The car was taken from us. He was told to go to Garda Station with proof of insurance and proof that he is the owner of the car.

My questions are:
What happens now?
What is the fine he'll be facing? How long more can he be disqualified for?
Should we get a solicitor?

They are probably all stupid questions, but I honestly have no idea, I have never even talked to a Garda before the whole taking off the licence thing. The answers are probably right in front of me in the road Traffic Act of whatever year but I'm just stupid enough not to see them.

Thank you everyone in advance.

MagicSean

You need a solicitor. He faces a lengthy ban, massive fine and possibly jail time.

Paulw

And, if you had have been driving, then you could be charged with driving on a learner's permit without being accompanied by a fully licensed driver.

Obviously, he can't have proof of insurance if his license is suspended.

Anyway, a solicitor is definitely needed.

bath handle

He needs a solicitor and a priest.

gustafo

He is in deep deep trouble i would say, he will proberly be looking at 6 years off the road now and a huge fine, he could get a jail sentence but that will all depend on the judge,

as said above go see a good solicitor because he is going to need it.

seamus

There are two separate offences here;

1. Driving without a licence.
Section 38 of the RTA. There is a specific provision in the act which levies extra penalties on someone driving while disqualified from holding a licence. It carries a maximum fine of €2,500. The judge may at his discretion also choose to impose a custodial sentence up to six months, either in lieu of or in addition to, the fine.
Driving while disqualified doesn't automatically cause the length of the ban to be increased, but the judge is permitted to do so if he wishes.

2. Driving without insurance
Section 56. This carries consequences for both of you. Similar to the above, a maximum fine of €2,500 and/or a maximum of six months in prison, and the judge may increase his ban.
If you are the owner of the vehicle he was driving, then you can also be charged with allowing him to drive your vehicle, knowing that he is uninsured. The potential penalty for you is the same, €2,500 fine and/or six months in prison. This is why the Garda wants to see his proof of ownership. If he can prove he owns the car, you're off the hook.

His original ban is pretty harsh, since the judge only has to apply a 1 year minimum ban. So I'm assuming that if he got 3 years then he was particularly drunk or did something monumentally stupid (like cause an accident). That he was caught driving again, just 3 months after his ban, will not go in his favour and IMO he's more likely to receive a very harsh punishment for his flagrant disregard of the law. This wasn't a simple mistake or misunderstanding.

He should sell his car (if he still has one), get on his bicycle for the next ten years, go hire a solicitor and throw himself on the mercy of the court.

Hightower86

The reason he was asked to produce insurance is two fold...

1. The Garda asked him to produce insurance (even though he knows he's not insured) as in a few months down the line the Garda will stand up in court and say that your bf failed to produce insurance when the demand was made of him. (This is a seperate offence than not being insured)

2. Normally when a car is taken from a person for being uninsured, the only way they can drive it out of the station is if they produce insurance to say they will be covered to drive the car upon leaving the station.

Now, if he owns the car the only way he'll get it back is taking it out of the station on the back of a tow truck upon providing the log book. If you own the car, produce the log book, produce insurance that shows that you are insured to drive, and a fully licensed driver(who have had their licence for 2+ years) and you should get the car back.

As for how long he will now be off the road, i'd say 5-10 years...

Jo King

seamus wrote: »

His original ban is pretty harsh, since the judge only has to apply a 1 year minimum ban. So I'm assuming that if he got 3 years then he was particularly drunk or did something monumentally stupid (like cause an accident). That he was caught driving again, just 3 months after his ban, will not go in his favour and IMO he's more likely to receive a very harsh punishment for his flagrant disregard of the law. This wasn't a simple mistake or misunderstanding.

He should sell his car (if he still has one), get on his bicycle for the next ten years, go hire a solicitor and throw himself on the mercy of the court.

The judge may well have had to impose a 3 year ban. The threshold is not particularly high for the three year minimum ban. At 150 it is just slightly above the original limit of 125 for the offence to be made out at all.
That being said the O/P had better get a good solicitor and hope for a nice judge.

Concentration of alcohol
(a) Not exceeding 100 milligrammes 1 Year
of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood;
(b) Not exceeding 135 milligrammes
of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine;
(c) Not exceeding 44 microgrammes
of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.


(a) Exceeding 100 milligrammes but not 2 Year
exceeding 150 milligrammes of alcohol
per 100 millilitres of blood;
(b) Exceeding 135 milligrammes but not
exceeding 200 milligrammes of alcoho
per 100 millilitres of urine;
(c) Exceeding 44 microgrammes but not
exceeding 66 micorgrammes of alcohol
per 100 millilitres of breath.

(a) Exceeding 150 milligrammes of alcohol 3 Year.
per 100 millilitres of blood;
(b) Exceeding 200 milligrammes of alcohol
per 100 millilitres of urine;
(c) Exceeding 66 microgrammes of alcohol
per 100 millilitres of breath.

coylemj

Hightower86 wrote: »

The reason he was asked to produce insurance is two fold...

1. The Garda asked him to produce insurance (even though he knows he's not insured) as in a few months down the line the Garda will stand up in court and say that your bf failed to produce insurance when the demand was made of him. (This is a seperate offence than not being insured)

Correct, the Garda is closing off a possible defence by asking the guy to produce, even though he knows that he can't produce an insurance cert. by virtue of the fact that he's disqualified.

When you are disqualified, you are not actually disqualified from driving, you are disqualified from holding a driving licence, there is a subtle difference which you will see later.

You can't legally be insured if you're disqualified but technically you could still drive and be covered under the insurance regulations so the Garda is closing off that possibility by demanding that the driver produce a certificate of insurance or exemption.

A possible loophole the driver could exploit....

If he's an army driver and the car is owned by the Minister for Defence then at all times he can drive without a driving licence (remember he's not disqualified from driving) and he doesn't need an insurance policy because third party liability is covered by an exempted person (the Minister).

In practice the Army and the Gardai do not allow their members who have been disqualified in the civil courts to drive official vehicles so a certificate of exemption (from insurance) signed by or on behalf of the Minister would not be forthcoming.

By demanding such a cert. and giving evidence that none was produced, the Garda can get him convicted of driving without insurance and by establishing that the car was not owned by a Minister, the possible defence of driving a state vehicle (to get around the charge of driving while disqualified) is removed.

Jo King

He could have obtained insurance by a fraud. He may not have cancelled his policy when disqualified and not informed his insures of a conviction. The Insurer would be obliged to compensate injured third parties. There is an offence of obtaining insurance by deception.
If he does produce an insurance cert, his insurer will be asked to confirm that he did not advise them of the conviction. Prosecution for obtaining insurance by deception will follow. If he does not produce then he will be convicted of driving without insurance.

coylemj

He would be an idiot to produce an insurance cert., he'd certainly deserve all he got if he tried.

Reloc8

Paulw wrote: »

And, if you had have been driving, then you could be charged with driving on a learner's permit without being accompanied by a fully licensed driver.

Obviously, he can't have proof of insurance if his license is suspended.

Anyway, a solicitor is definitely needed.

Seriously. You are getting judgmental on a potential hypothetical that didn't happen.

Jo King wrote: »

That being said the O/P had better get a good solicitor and hope for a nice judge.

Absolutely.

coylemj wrote: »

He would be an idiot to produce an insurance cert., he'd certainly deserve all he got if he tried.

He won't be done for no insurance. Least of his worries.

Milk & Honey

Reloc8 wrote: »

He won't be done for no insurance. Least of his worries.

There is a very good chance that he will be summonsed for an insurance related offence. In every case of driving while banned that I have seen the judge will always make a vitriolic comment about insurance.
Judges hate no insurance. They all have to pay insurance themselves if they drive (and most do) and therefore regard uninsured drivers as parasites on insured drivers.
It is possible that the no insurance charge might be dropped in return for a guilty plea, but the guard is certainly setting up a charge.

seamus

coylemj wrote: »

You can't legally be insured if you're disqualified but technically you could still drive and be covered under the insurance regulations so the Garda is closing off that possibility by demanding that the driver produce a certificate of insurance or exemption.

Jo King wrote: »

The Insurer would be obliged to compensate injured third parties.

I'm aware of the obligation of an insurer to compensate 3rd parties, but the state-approved certificate of insurance specifically includes a clause that the certificate is only valid if the driver holds (or has previously held) a driving licence and is not disqualified from doing so.

I was under the impression that once the insured driver breaches the conditions of the state-approved certificate of insurance, then they are completely uninsured. Another example would be driving a car which belongs to you, but is not mentioned on the insurance certificate.

Milk & Honey

seamus wrote: »

I'm aware of the obligation of an insurer to compensate 3rd parties, but the state-approved certificate of insurance specifically includes a clause that the certificate is only valid if the driver holds (or has previously held) a driving licence and is not disqualified from doing so.

I was under the impression that once the insured driver breaches the conditions of the state-approved certificate of insurance, then they are completely uninsured. Another example would be driving a car which belongs to you, but is not mentioned on the insurance certificate.

The driver not holding a licence is not grounds for refusing a third party claim. Directive 84/5 EC Article 2. Implemented by SI No. 321/1987:
Driving a car to which no insurance attaches is different.

Master and commander

In addition to the above, I might also reccomend that, at some stage, you obtain yourself a fiance that isn't a complete moron. I mean getting done for drunk driving is bad enough but then getting done for having no liscense is just taking the piss altogether. TBH, I'd never be bothered with a person that does things like this. What a drag, and if you stay with him you'll end up with him trying to scab lifts off of you everywhere for the next 10 years. Who needs that!