Garda fined €900 for offences following fatal accident outside Limerick

TestTransmission

It was a bizarre set of circumstances, you don't expect to meet 2 people on a motorway but do you think the fine was fair?Would it of been more for a non member of the Garda Siochana?

Fines of €900 have been imposed on a garda who was found to have no driving licence, no car tax, and two bald tyres on his car following a fatal accident on a motorway outside Limerick.
The court heard Garda Clifford was driving home after work on the M20 southbound motorway outside Limerick when he was confronted by two pedestrians who were on the ground in the middle of the road.

They suffered fatal injuries after they were struck by Garda Clifford's car.

During the investigation which followed, it transpired that Garda Clifford had no driving licence, no car tax and had two bald tyres which the court heard today were extensively worn.

Garda Clifford made a plea admitting to all charges.

Full story here


Story back in January 2011


Please don't turn this into a Garda bashing thread btw, it's not my intentions at all.

LostCorkGuy

That's all he got :eek: :mad:

What was he doing driving with out a license ? Don't really care about the bald tires

when he was confronted by two pedestrians who were on the ground in the middle of the road.

Really wish they would clarify that , My understanding of confronted would suggest they squared up to his car

-Corkie-

In fairness if he had 50mm of tyre thread he would have still killed them. They were sitting in the driving lane ffs..

Ardent

two pedestrians who were on the ground in the middle of the road

WTF?! Unlikely there could have been another outcome given the above.

UnknownSpecies

It's probably fair enough. If two people are lying in the middle of the road, no amount of tyre thread will save them. I doubt it was special treatment given to the Garda.

EDIT: Just saw the part about no license either. Maybe a bit lax. Should definitely be banned from getting a license for a while.

but43r

TestTransmission wrote: »

It was a bizarre set of circumstances, you don't expect to meet 2 people on a motorway but do you think the fine was fair?Would it of been more for a non member of the Garda Siochana?




Full story here


Story back in January 2011


Please don't turn this into a Garda bashing thread btw, it's not my intentions at all.

Wow, that guy deserved jail time not 900 euro fine. And it doesn't matter if he's Garda or not...

By no driver's license do they mean it had expired or he simply doesn't have one? I find this a bit of a joke "Garda Clifford realised the condition of his vehicle was not as it should be, and intended to go to a dealer to get tyres but the dealer did not have the tyres he needed, the court was told." when coupled with " ........two bald tyres which the court heard today were extensively worn." Tyres take a while to go from 1.6mm to extensively worn imo.

In fairness the fines given for the bald tyres and having no tax don't seem out of the way, certainly they don't appear overly lenient.

The article doesn't seem to go into if they were a factor in the incident or not, it would appear they weren't.

Tea 1000

Don't blame him for hitting them, but there's no excuse for driving without a license, and no excuse for having bald tyres, as that's another accident waiting to happen.
Don't care about the tax.

spiggotpaddy

I can hear the padlock tumbling already.

langdang

RoverJames wrote: »

By no driver's license do they mean it had expired or he simply doesn't have one?

Yup, that is kinda critical as to whether the judgment was lenient or not. The tax/tyres thing doesn't seem out of the way as RJ says.

He was not before the court on charges of dangerous driving etc, let me emphasise that for the hard of thinking/reading : he was not before the court on anything to do with the fatalities - just the licence, tax and tyres.

MuppetCheck

The seriousness of the incident should not have a bearing on the Garda being prosecuted for the tyres, licence or tax. I say fair play for following through with the prosecution for these and that he openly admitted it (not that it wasn't obvious). That is the story here and I see nothing wrong with that.

The fact that it was found out following a fatal accident is a very unfortunate side story to this. In saying this I in no way am playing down the loss for the families involved (or indeed the pain this has also caused for the Garda).

Atlantic Dawn

They should have also mentioned if the car had a valid NCT, when the NCT was carried out and if the NCT report sheet had wrote on it that both tyres were below 3 mm.

shawnee

The nct could have been carried out 23 months before the incident and indeed if it approved the tyres three months beforehand the driver could have covered the mileage and worn out the tyres in that period.:mad:

Hunter Mahan

He must have had a license at some stage otherwise there would have been charges relating to no insurance. RTE should be ashamed of their reporting, it has so many holes in it.
I'm guessing, but it looks like his license had expired.

Leaving aside his profession, it must be hard for him after two people died in the incident, how do you cope with that?

With regards to his profession, how could he be so stupid as to have been on the road with a bald tyre and no licence? The fines don't appear to be lenient when you consider he was not to blame for the deaths.
Although I imagine he will face even tougher sanctions when the Ombudsman finishes their investigation.

I wonder if he was not a Garda would there be so many threads on boards? That is not the point though as he should have known and behaved better because of his profession.

linkedin09

Anyone else would have received a manslaughter charge for this.

barfizz

I think that the unfortunate accident with the people in the road was not the guards fault.

What I find interesting is that the Guard originally claimed to be a member of the traffic unit, but that was denied by the unit (according to the indo). Do you think there is some egg on their face that they had an unlicensed officer driving around ???

It would be interesting if someone was done by this fella and had the proof that he was in the traffic core, dig out you summonses lads and see if he is on them. I'm sure the papers would love to see such info if it existed.

In my opinion, this guy was a serving guard and the book should have been thrown at him for driving with no license, a 12 month ban at minimum.

MuppetCheck

linkedin09 wrote: »

Anyone else would have received a manslaughter charge for this.

How do you figure that out? Because he was a Garda they didn't pursue a manslaughter case? Get real FFS.

linkedin09

MuppetCheck wrote: »

How do you figure that out? Because he was a Garda they didn't pursue a manslaughter case? Get real FFS.

"no driving licence, no car tax, and two bald tyres on his car"

Dangerous Driving in my opinion.

Therfore, yes I do stand by my previous comment.

MugMugs

Do we know if he was banned from holding or has never held or held an expired licence? It's relevant. All in all I feel this INDIVIDUAL got away light with a 900 euro fine IF the tire thread was pertinent to the event!

MuppetCheck

linkedin09 wrote: »

"no driving licence, no car tax, and two bald tyres on his car"

Dangerous Driving in my opinion.

Therfore, yes I do stand by my previous comment.

I think it's quite obvious the condition of the car was not a contributing factor to this accident. If it was charges would have been brought against the driver.

Jimbob 83

Manslaughter suggestion is ridiculous, he was just a jackass who got put in a bad situation and the 3 things were noticed after, 2 people sitting/lying in the middle of the road were just waiting to die anyway, could have easily been the next person which could have been anyone posting on this forum.

hoodie6029

my two cents.

Two people lying down on motorway.

The only charges brought were the only things the Garda was at fault for. These were discovered as a result of an Ombudsman investigation. That is, they had to be brought. Anyone else would not have been charged with anything barring they were drunk.

I think everybody should be able to read between the lines in the news reporting here.

Big Nasty

linkedin09 wrote: »

Anyone else would have received a manslaughter charge for this.

LOL!

hoodie6029 wrote: »

my two cents.

Two people lying down on motorway.

The only charges brought were the only things the Garda was at fault for. These were discovered as a result of an Ombudsman investigation. That is, they had to be brought. Anyone else would not have been charged with anything barring they were drunk.

I think everybody should be able to read between the lines in the news reporting here.

Spot on IMO!

alias no.9

MuppetCheck wrote: »

How do you figure that out? Because he was a Garda they didn't pursue a manslaughter case? Get real FFS.

I know a person who killed a man who had been lying down, possibly sleeping or passed out, on a backroad at 3am. The driver was on their way home from a night shift. The driver got a 2 year ban, but that was for leaving the scene of the accident, because they had no idea what they'd hit and freaked a little, so they went a short distance to their house, got a family member to return with them to check and obviously called the emergency services at that stage. Not an identical scenario but not a world away in terms of misadventure by pedestrians so a little bit of context.

linkedin09

MuppetCheck wrote: »

I think it's quite obvious the condition of the car was not a contributing factor to this accident. If it was charges would have been brought against the driver.

Are you having a laugh? Are you trying to tell me there was no attempt to brake before the collision? Have a read mate..

http://www.etyres.co.uk/tread-depths-distance

Braking distance is SEVERELY increased even at the legal limit of 1.6mm.

I just feel so sorry for the families of people killed due to sheer negligence.

Also, guilty for having NO licence.. Alarm bells.

Big Nasty

linkedin09 wrote: »

I just feel so sorry for the families of people killed due to sheer negligence.

'Twas negligence that killed them alright.

Negligence like lying in the middle of a motorway.

CL7

Does anybody know why they were lying down on the motorway? Could see how one drunk person could end up there but two.

Big Nasty

Dr. Strange wrote: »

Does anybody know why they were lying down on the motorway? Could see how one drunk person could end up there but two.

Two drunk people maybe?

linkedin09

MCMLXXV wrote: »

'Twas negligence that killed them alright.

Negligence like lying in the middle of a motorway.

Well then I wish the RTE report was detailed a bit better.

CL7

MCMLXXV wrote: »

Two drunk people maybe?

Thats what I meant. I find it incredible that two people could get so drunk that they would lie down on the motorway.

munstergirl

Sounds more like drugs than drink, one had convictions for heroin.


Driver of their car a girl fled the accident with 2 other passengers.

CL7

Ah, now that makes more sense.

MuppetCheck

alias no.9 wrote: »

I know a person who killed a man who had been lying down, possibly sleeping or passed out, on a backroad at 3am. The driver was on their way home from a night shift. The driver got a 2 year ban, but that was for leaving the scene of the accident, because they had no idea what they'd hit and freaked a little, so they went a short distance to their house, got a family member to return with them to check and obviously called the emergency services at that stage. Not an identical scenario but not a world away in terms of misadventure by pedestrians so a little bit of context.

But they left the scene of an accident. That's a world away from calling it in as opposed to leaving someone dead on the road.

linkedin09 wrote: »

Are you having a laugh? Are you trying to tell me there was no attempt to brake before the collision? Have a read mate..

http://www.etyres.co.uk/tread-depths-distance

Braking distance is SEVERELY increased even at the legal limit of 1.6mm.

I just feel so sorry for the families of people killed due to sheer negligence.

Also, guilty for having NO licence.. Alarm bells.

No one is saying that the breaking of a car isnt reduced. But that's not grounds for manslaughter. If the accident could be avoided but wasn't as a result of the cars condition there is a case as the driver left it get into an unroadworthy condition. But the accident would have been investigated thoroughly with 2 fatalities and charges would have been brought if it was an avoidable accident. To imply that charges were not brought as the driver is a member of AGS is ludicrous. The correct charges were brought against this guy. There is no need to charge him with other peoples idiocy. I'm sure he's paying a big enough price in his own head.

Anan1

munstergirl wrote: »

Sounds more like drugs than drink, one had convictions for heroin.

Now that's as likely a reason for any 'leniency' as the driver being a Garda.

And FYI, munstergirl, alcohol is a drug too.

Big Nasty

Dr. Strange wrote: »

Does anybody know why they were lying down on the motorway? Could see how one drunk person could end up there but two.

munstergirl wrote: »

Sounds more like drugs than drink, one had convictions for heroin.

Driver of their car a girl fled the accident with 2 other passengers.

Anan1 wrote: »

Now that's as likely a reason for any 'leniency' as the driver being a Garda.

And FYI, munstergirl, alcohol is a drug too.

You hardly think they were sober / drug free now do you Anan?

Anan1

MCMLXXV wrote: »

You hardly think they were sober / drug free now do you Anan?

Hardly! The issue i'm raising is that killing a drug addict may not be taken as seriously as killing a drunk person.

Delancey

When all is said and done prosecutions can only be taken on the basis of the evidence , no licence - check , no tax - check , 2 bald tyres - check.

Utterly ridiculous to suggest a charge of Dangerous Driving or even more silly , Manslaughter and shows a very poor grasp of the law and its procedures.

Reg'stoy

The €200 fine for 'no' licence leads me to believe it was lapsed and not for that long, considering the fines as laid down by law are a max of €1000 when it is lapsed by less than a year and €2000 when over a year.

I often read when accidents results in deaths, that living with what happened is the worst punishment; the most ridiculous of things to say in most cases. Here however we have a guy who will no doubt question every decision he made that night.

How many times have we wanted to kick ourselves in the nuts when we go "f**k it, I should have done.........". This fella will wake up most, if not all mornings and maybe not say it first thing once his eyes open; but at some stage during the day, he will stop and say "f**k it, I should've......".

The Judge was in an unenvible position, if he fined him the max then why was he not charged with their deaths. He had to view the tax, licence and tyre issue as seperate to the events of the night because it seems they were.

alias no.9

MuppetCheck wrote: »

But they left the scene of an accident

That was the point I was making, the car they were driving struck and killed the man lying on the road but it was only the fact of leaving the scene that charges were brought.

Big Nasty

Anan1 wrote: »

Hardly! The issue i'm raising is that killing a drug addict may not be taken as seriously as killing a drunk person.

I don't think that was ever implied TBH.

munstergirl said (in her own opinion) that it was more likely drugs than drink that 'influenced' the two lads to be lying down in the middle of a motorway. Worth of someones life was never mentioned.

Anan1

MCMLXXV wrote: »

I don't think that was ever implied TBH.

munstergirl said (in her own opinion) that it was more likely drugs than drink that 'influenced' the two lads to be lying down in the middle of a motorway. Worth of someones life was never mentioned.

Maybe I didn't explain it so well. We're discussing the possibility that the judge was lenient because of who the driver was. I'm raising the possibility that the judge might have been lenient because of who the victims were.

Big Nasty

Anan1 wrote: »

Maybe I didn't explain it so well. We're discussing the possibility that the judge was lenient because of who the driver was. I'm raising the possibility that the judge might have been lenient because of who the victims were.

This was the only person who suggest that:

linkedin09 wrote: »

Anyone else would have received a manslaughter charge for this.

Personally I think both suggestions are way off the mark and to some degree off topic.

mathepac

Reg'stoy wrote: »

...
The Judge was in an unenvible position, if he fined him the max then why was he not charged with their deaths. He had to view the tax, licence and tyre issue as seperate to the events of the night because it seems they were.

The DPP decides the charges, not the cops and not the Judge. The "tyre issue" is in no way separate.

One of the few things I like about US law is that (in some States) if someone dies as a result of the actions of a person convicted of an indictable offence, then on conviction they are automatically charged with either manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. This case would have followed those guidelines.

veetwin

Anan1 wrote: »

Maybe I didn't explain it so well. We're discussing the possibility that the judge was lenient because of who the driver was. I'm raising the possibility that the judge might have been lenient because of who the victims were.

Have to say it appears that the judge was quiet harsh. €500 fine for 2 bald tyres seems very excessive. Would have thought the norm was €100 per tyre. Certainly any joe public who received this level of fines for a first offence would be appealing the severity.

pred racer

veetwin wrote: »

Have to say it appears that the judge was quiet harsh. €500 fine for 2 bald tyres seems very excessive. Would have thought the norm was €100 per tyre. Certainly any joe public who received this level of fines for a first offence would be appealing the severity.

I dunno, if i got done for, no licence, no tax and 2 bald tyres having just killed 2 people (whatever the circumstances) id feel pretty relieved at just paying 900 quid!

MuppetCheck

pred racer wrote: »

I dunno, if i got done for, no licence, no tax and 2 bald tyres having just killed 2 people (whatever the circumstances) id feel pretty relieved at just paying 900 quid!

The thing is though he didn't kill them. They killed themselves unfortunately.

TestTransmission

Anan1 wrote: »

Maybe I didn't explain it so well. We're discussing the possibility that the judge was lenient because of who the driver was. I'm raising the possibility that the judge might have been lenient because of who the victims were.

I should of posted more links but I assumed (wrongly) that people were familiar with this story, most reports are fairly sketchy, this article gives more details.



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gardai-seek-identity-of-second-man-hit-by-offduty-officers-car-2495902.html

GARDAI were last night attempting to establish the identity of a young man who died alongside another man after they were struck by a car driven by an off-duty garda on a busy motorway.

The Garda Ombudsman is appealing for witnesses to the road traffic accident on the M20 which occurred just before midnight on Wednesday on the outskirts of Limerick city.

One of the victims killed -- after the Opel Astra car collided with the two men -- has been named as Gavin O'Callaghan (20) of Courtown Drive, Knocknaheeny, Cork.

Investigators are examining the possibility that the two men may have been involved in an altercation on the outbound lane of the motorway when the car driven by the off-duty male officer crashed into them.

An off-duty female officer was also in the vehicle. The speed limit on the motorway is 120kph.

Emergency services were alerted, but the two victims were pronounced dead at the scene. Members of Roxboro garda station arrived at the scene, but no arrests were made.

The Garda Ombudsman is investigating reports that the two victims may have just got out of a car which was parked on the hard shoulder of the motorway, close to the scene of the fatal collision.

It is understood that the unidentified vehicle had its hazard lights on and had two other occupants on board.

Investigators are attempting to establish whether the two men were involved in a row in the middle of the road seconds before the collision took place.

A female passenger got out of the parked vehicle seconds after the collision, but quickly got back in and the car took off from the scene. Investigators are attempting to uncover the identity of those who were in the parked car and what route it took after the accident.

My own view? Apart from the terrible accident which happened, no tax, no licence and 2 bald tyres deserves more than a €900 fine imo

Reg'stoy

mathepac wrote: »

The DPP decides the charges, not the cops and not the Judge. The "tyre issue" is in no way separate.

One of the few things I like about US law is that (in some States) if someone dies as a result of the actions of a person convicted of an indictable offence, then on conviction they are automatically charged with either manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. This case would have followed those guidelines.

It was the amount of the fine I was talking about, not the decision as to what charges were laid before the court.

It seems you have watched too much american TV, his actions as in getting into his car (with or with out bald tyres) and driving on that road at that time were not the cause of the deaths. If he had mounted a footpath and hit them that would be different.

He was brought before the courts for having no licence (lapsed maybe?) no tax (out of date by how much or never gotten) and for having two bald tyres. These charges came about as a result of the investigation into the accident that night.

Phyisical evidence at the scene of the accident would have indicated A. if he had braked B. the distance traveled from when (if he did) start braking to hitting them C. the speed he would have hit the two persons (nature of injuries etc). The DPP by means of a technical report from a specialist would have determined if the state of the two tyres along with other factors as in the car brakes, it's speed and the drivers physical condition (he had it seems completed a number of late shifts so might have been tired) might have contributated to the deaths, if indeed they did.

Traveling at 120kph and coming across two prone bodies on the road, it would have to take lighting quick reactions to firstly recognise those two shapes as people, then brake or cross lanes. How many dogs and deer are killed by cars each year and remember these people were lying on the road so were only inches above the road surface.

woody_2000

mathepac wrote: »

The DPP decides the charges, not the cops and not the Judge. The "tyre issue" is in no way separate.

One of the few things I like about US law is that (in some States) if someone dies as a result of the actions of a person convicted of an indictable offence, then on conviction they are automatically charged with either manslaughter or 2nd degree murder. This case would have followed those guidelines.

Did they die because of an indictable offence on the part of the driver? There appears to be nothing to suggest that they did. It appears they may have been negligent due to the reckless manner in which they were lying on the road, which appears to have directly contributed to their death - and that in itself may have been an indictable offence, on their part. It is possible that they may have died due to an indictable offence, but possibly more on their part rather than any part of the driver.

Re. US law: Firstly, this is not the US - and is a completely different jurisdiction, with its own particular characteristics, and there appears to be no US connection (which could possibly become relevant in certain litigious situations). Secondly, I'm not sure in how many US states such a rule would apply - but each state also can also be a completely different jurisdiction, with its own particular characteristics (I've personally been in all 48 contiguous states), depending on whether there is federal jurisdiction or not as might pertain to a particular case (i.e. a federal offence) - just as might be the case within the EU. Each EU state is also a different jurisdiction, with its own particular characteristics - except where EU jurisdiction might apply.

celticcrash

No licence. you cant have insurance without a licence.
So no licence, no insurance, no tax and bald tyres.
This fella is a loose cannon. 900 euros a joke.
Is he still in the Garda force?
No insurance: 5 penalty points and a fine of up to €2,500 and/or a possible term of imprisonment

Guy:Incognito

celticcrash wrote: »

No licence. you cant have insurance without a licence.
So no licence, no insurance, no tax and bald tyres.
This fella is a loose cannon. 900 euros a joke.
Is he still in the Garda force?
No insurance: 5 penalty points and a fine of up to €2,500 and/or a possible term of imprisonment

If you read your insurance cert , you'll find a line that goes something like "holds or has held a licence in the appropriate catagory"