The district court and driving offences......my experiences.

BRAIN FEEDs

Was in the district court last week as an observer for 2 days.

the amount of times i saw drivers up on speeding charges are too many to remember.
almost all of them were struck out.......... why? because the person summonsed said they never received the fine in the post,the first they heard of the offence was when the summons arrived.

judge: "why didnt you pay the fine?"

your honour i didnt receive any fine just this summons.

judge: "have you any questions guard?"

no judge....

judge:"case dismissed,thank you for your time,you can go now"


any comments on this?

Btw,there were people there who had USA and Hungarian driving licences... what a joke.

paddy147

which court.

Was it Chancery Street court 44 by any chance??

BRAIN FEEDs

paddy147 wrote: »

which court.

Was it Chancery Street court 44 by any chance??

It was Ennis district court.........

2 days,2 different judges.

paddy147

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

It was Ennis district court.........

2 days,2 different judges.

The judge in Court 44 today was not having any of it with anyone who tried that excuse on.

They all got fines and the gardai all came prrepared with all their evidence..

BRAIN FEEDs

paddy147 wrote: »

The judge in Court 44 today was not having any of it with anyone who tried that excuse on.

They all got fines and the gardai all came prrepared with all their evidence..

:eek: wow wow wow............ this isnt the 1st time ive seen foreigners and irish people using this excuse,i witnessed it 2 years ago also,when i was an observer................

L1011

Until the GFPO starts sending notifications by registered post, this excuse effectively *has* to work.

Its impossible to know if you've been caught by a camera and indeed impossible to pay the fine even for a case where you're stopped without the docket.

Despite the fact that it would inevitably *save* money due to not having to issue as many summons, waste of court time, etc, they appear unwilling to do this.

Guy:Incognito

Why doesnt the judge just say "well your here now and you've known about the fine since the summons came at the very least, cough up"

cadaliac

I don't get it. Two courts and two different sets of laws
They stopped using that excuse in cork a year or more ago. Must be a local knowledge thing, as in everyone knows what he judge will do.

BRAIN FEEDs

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why doesnt the judge just say "well your here now and you've known about the fine since the summons came at the very least, cough up"

probably because the fine is more for a court appearance and if the defendant didnt receive the inital fine in the post,then justice has not taken place because they can claim they wernt given the option.

christmas2012

It shouldnt matter if they didnt recieve a fine in the post or not,the fact is they committed the offence,its a waste of tax payers time and the garda time its ridiculous..

MugMugs

Perhaps I am off the mark here but all it would take is for Thurles to show that it was sent and show that it hasn't been returned.

Would that not suffice in showing that the excuse is BS?

Reloc8

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Why doesnt the judge just say "well your here now and you've known about the fine since the summons came at the very least, cough up"

When a summons issues the penalty points go up from 2 to 4 on conviction (as does the maximum fine). All anybody really cares about is the points - 4 is a fair chunk to get in one go for a simple speeding.

Basically, the legislation states that a summons can issue after a person has been served with penalty points notice - affording them an opportunity to pay a lesser amount and receive 2 penalty points.

If the person doesn't receive the notice, then they never got the chance to do this, and moreover the statutory pre-condition for a prosecution wasn't met, hence case dismissed.

If a person swears that they didn't get the notice, it is difficult for a judge to convict (although some 'have none of it', these cases are generally reversed on appeal).

Solutions :-

1. Serve fixed fine penalty point notices by registered post or personally (expensive...), or

2. Give a judge a discretion on how many penalty points to impose up to a stated maximum. Currently, there is no discretion if a conviction is imposed (oh so you didn't receive the notice. Not a problem. 2 penalty points sir, and a €500 fine).

(also would need to tweak some of the techincal bits of the RTA regarding issue of fixed fine penalty points notice but very doable).

BRAIN FEEDs

[QUOTE=christmas2012;79293977]It shouldnt matter if they didnt recieve a fine in the post or not,the fact is they committed the offence,its a waste of tax payers time and the garda time its ridiculous..[/QUOTE]of course it should matter...... if ther is a procedure in place then it should be followed.

BTW its only a charge against a driver,its not an offence until proven and judgement has been passed. semantics? we are talking about law here.

Drummerboy08

christmas2012 wrote: »

It shouldnt matter if they didnt recieve a fine in the post or not,the fact is they committed the offence,its a waste of tax payers time and the garda time its ridiculous..

The registered owner may not always be the driver, so it's only fair that the owner has the opportunity to figure out if it was them driving, or if it was someone else driving the vehicle.

fasttalkerchat

If they weren't sending fines for 5km/h over the limit it would be feasible to send every fine by recorded post.

BRAIN FEEDs

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

The registered owner may not always be the driver, so it's only fair that the owner has the opportunity to figure out if it was them driving, or if it was someone else driving the vehicle.

which reminds me of another case.........

Father owns car,but the son drives it.son gets pulled over,gets summonsed for 4 bald tires.
cop tries,and fails to have fines issued on both the owner and driver of the car.Judge says the cop is within his right to summons both for the same offence but this is highly unusual and just imposes fines on the driver,which was 100e for each bald tire

Drummerboy08

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

which reminds me of another case.........

Father owns car,but the son drives it.son gets pulled over,gets summonsed for 4 bald tires.
cop tries,and fails to have fines issued on both the owner and driver of the car.Judge says the cop is within his right to summons both for the same offence but this is highly unusual and just imposes fines on the driver,which was 100e for each bald tire

Is the registered owner (in this case the father presumably) responsible for ensuring the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition. AFAIK, they're not. Therefore the driver should really be the only person liable for the summons here?

Maybe I'm wrong though.

hondasam

I think we must have a serious problem with the services An Post offer. There cannot be this amount of mail going missing and especially just fines.
Maybe it's An Post and the postmen/women who should be looked at.

paddy147

hondasam wrote: »

I think we must have a serious problem with the services An Post offer. There cannot be this amount of mail going missing and especially just fines.
Maybe it's An Post and the postmen/women who should be looked at.

A garda traffic corp asked a similar question of a young lady today in court 44,chancery street.

Have you written to or contacted An Post and complained/asked about the poor postal service to your address.

She had claimed that she hadnt recieved the 1st fine,but then only got a summons in the post.

The judge found in the garda's favour and slapped the girl with the heavier fine for speeding.

bcmf

There is a judge who sits in North County Dublin detests any motoring offence.
He imposes no less then maximum for any motoring offence. There was a guy who late last year was banned from driving for 30 (thirty) years as he was caught driving while banned with only 3 days left to go of his ban.

BRAIN FEEDs

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Is the registered owner (in this case the father presumably) responsible for ensuring the vehicle is in a roadworthy condition. AFAIK, they're not. Therefore the driver should really be the only person liable for the summons here?

Maybe I'm wrong though.

i would have agreed with you,but i saw different in the court.

hondasam wrote: »

I think we must have a serious problem with the services An Post offer. There cannot be this amount of mail going missing and especially just fines.
Maybe it's An Post and the postmen/women who should be looked at.

hahaha, you know as well as i do that all these fines could not possibly,or could they?,go missing. ppl just taking a chance and getting away with it.

TestTransmission

paddy147 wrote: »

A garda traffic corp asked a similar question of a young lady today in court 44,chancery street.

Have you written to or contacted An Post and complained/asked about the poor postal service to your address.

She had claimed that she hadnt recieved the 1st fine,but then only got a summons in the post.

The judge found in the garda's favour and slapped the girl with the heavier fine for speeding.

The summons comes by registered post doesn't it?

hondasam

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

which reminds me of another case.........

Father owns car,but the son drives it.son gets pulled over,gets summonsed for 4 bald tires.
cop tries,and fails to have fines issued on both the owner and driver of the car.Judge says the cop is within his right to summons both for the same offence but this is highly unusual and just imposes fines on the driver,which was 100e for each bald tire

Owner can be done for allowing someone drive a car without insurance for eg.

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

hahaha, you know as well as i do that all these fines could not possibly,or could they?,go missing. ppl just taking a chance and getting away with it.

Of course they don't go missing, it's the chance you take going to court and if you fail to persuade the judge you get a hefty fine and double points.

TestTransmission wrote: »

The summons comes by registered post doesn't it?

Are these not hand delivered by the guard?

BRAIN FEEDs

paddy147 wrote: »

A garda traffic corp asked a similar question of a young lady today in court 44,chancery street.

Have you written to or contacted An Post and complained/asked about the poor postal service to your address.

She had claimed that she hadnt recieved the 1st fine,but then only got a summons in the post.

The judge found in the garda's favour and slapped the girl with the heavier fine for speeding.

Seriously paddy............. i did say to the mrs after i reported what i seen in the court,that all one has to do is send a registered letter to an post,and say you have had missing post recently,if one did get a fine and ignored it,next up will be a summons and one could produce this letter and from my experience,case would be dismissed

hondasam

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

Seriously paddy............. i did say to the mrs after i reported what i seen in the court,that all one has to do is send a registered letter to an post,and say you have had missing post recently,if one did get a fine and ignored it,next up will be a summons and one could produce this letter and from my experience,case would be dismissed

It all depends on the judge not everyone gets off like this. He can ask you to swear on oath that no fine arrived in the post and I know of one case where he asked if everyone in the house would come to court and swear on oath.

paddy147

BRAIN FEEDs wrote: »

Seriously paddy............. i did say to the mrs after i reported what i seen in the court,that all one has to do is send a registered letter to an post,and say you have had missing post recently,if one did get a fine and ignored it,next up will be a summons and one could produce this letter and from my experience,case would be dismissed

Yep,seriously.

The judge (female judge) quizzed the lady in question about it.
Garda had the dates of which the 1st fine was issued and also the summons.

When the lady said she only recieved the summons and not the 1st fine,and when the garda asked her if she had written to An Post and she said no...then the judge found in favour of the traffic corp garda (Dublin Castle) and hit her with a 300 euro fine,as the lady had pleaded not guilty.

She swore under oath and had pleaded not guilty,as she wanted to ask some questions to the judge and garda,and they overlooked her and she got a bigger fine.

paddy147

Alot of people tried this " I never got the fine in the post" excuse today in Chancery Street,and none of them got their cases struck out.

All of them got fined by the lady judge and the gardai were well on top of their game too.

L1011

paddy147 wrote: »

A garda traffic corp asked a similar question of a young lady today in court 44,chancery street.

Have you written to or contacted An Post and complained/asked about the poor postal service to your address.

Not particularly a useful question to ask - how precisely are you meant to know if you're not receiving post? You don't get a card saying "we lost something" (usually - I did once get one saying there'd been a postal robbery)

I get precisely bog all post - all my bills are online, the only post I usually get is from my incompetent bin company sending me stickers for the wrong package, every two months, for some surreal reason. There is absolutely no way in hell I'd know if there was poor postal service here.

Colonel Sanders

hondasam wrote: »

I think we must have a serious problem with the services An Post offer. There cannot be this amount of mail going missing and especially just fines.
Maybe it's An Post and the postmen/women who should be looked at.

I've lived at my current address for 4 years. Postal service is an absolute joke. I've lost count of how many letters I've had gone missing (and that's just the stuff I know about). Between missing post & stuff marked "Private & Confidential" being left in the porch because the postman is too lazy to put it in the letter box nothing would surprise me

Alas the one speeding notice I was ever sent was delivered :-)

hondasam

Post can get lost but it's the amount of these fines that are getting lost that is the joke. The guards point with the lady was is this an ongoing issue with An Post or it a once off.
How much would it cost to register all these fines? is it worth it really.

paddy147

I think the judge and their attitude/humor on the day plays a part too.

You can be lucky or unlucky on the day.

hondasam

paddy147 wrote: »

I think the judge and their attitude/humor on the day plays a part too.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=not%20receiving%20speeding%20fines%20judge&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CHgQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fnational-news%2Fcourts%2Fjudge-closes-loophole-used-to-avoid-speeding-penalty-points-1824424.html&ei=W9fgT9zxLo-5hAe54J22DQ&usg=AFQjCNF36-69NUgwiEfeZzxIWB7H0VDrXQ

This is interesting.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=not%20receiving%20fines%20speeding&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CHYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.limerickleader.ie%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fspeeding-cases-thrown-out-as-motorists-claim-they-did-not-receive-fines-1-2860088&ei=OdngT-3QHcqChQf00ZW6DQ&usg=AFQjCNEnsSr3HIbl8TSIQKsRKzPOE-NDLA

Sulla Felix

MugMugs wrote: »

Perhaps I am off the mark here but all it would take is for Thurles to show that it was sent and show that it hasn't been returned.

Would that not suffice in showing that the excuse is BS?

No it wouldny. Anything could happen to the mail between thurles franking it and the recipient. Wrong apt mailbox, mail stolen, flatmate takes mail and forgets to distribute etc.

paddy147

hondasam wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=not%20receiving%20speeding%20fines%20judge&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CHgQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fnational-news%2Fcourts%2Fjudge-closes-loophole-used-to-avoid-speeding-penalty-points-1824424.html&ei=W9fgT9zxLo-5hAe54J22DQ&usg=AFQjCNF36-69NUgwiEfeZzxIWB7H0VDrXQ

This is interesting.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=not%20receiving%20fines%20speeding&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CHYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.limerickleader.ie%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fspeeding-cases-thrown-out-as-motorists-claim-they-did-not-receive-fines-1-2860088&ei=OdngT-3QHcqChQf00ZW6DQ&usg=AFQjCNEnsSr3HIbl8TSIQKsRKzPOE-NDLA

Thanks for that.

The lady judge actually mentioned Judge Whites ruling on a case a while ago,but I couldnt hear all of what she said,due to people coughing loudly.:(

christmas2012

They should have been fined anyway - it is a speeding offence very serious speed is a killer and they know they shouldnt have been over the limit..

Veloce

paddy147 wrote: »

hondasam wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=not%20receiving%20speeding%20fines%20judge&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CHgQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Fnational-news%2Fcourts%2Fjudge-closes-loophole-used-to-avoid-speeding-penalty-points-1824424.html&ei=W9fgT9zxLo-5hAe54J22DQ&usg=AFQjCNF36-69NUgwiEfeZzxIWB7H0VDrXQ

This is interesting.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=not%20receiving%20fines%20speeding&source=web&cd=4&sqi=2&ved=0CHYQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.limerickleader.ie%2Fnews%2Flocal%2Fspeeding-cases-thrown-out-as-motorists-claim-they-did-not-receive-fines-1-2860088&ei=OdngT-3QHcqChQf00ZW6DQ&usg=AFQjCNEnsSr3HIbl8TSIQKsRKzPOE-NDLA

Thanks for that.

The lady judge actually mentioned Judge Whites ruling on a case a while ago,but I couldnt hear all of what she said,due to people coughing loudly.:(

Paddy147, whats the story with going in and observing? Can any public Joe just walk into the court room? Is that place on Chancery street a common place for road traffic offence cases to be heard?

paddy147

Veloce wrote: »

Paddy147, whats the story with going in and observing? Can any public Joe just walk into the court room? Is that place on Chancery street a common place for road traffic offence cases to be heard?

Court 44 is for motoring offences.

I was in there today supporting a friend who was up for a speeding offence.

TestTransmission

hondasam wrote: »

Are these not hand delivered by the guard?

I dunno, I've never had the pleasure.

hondasam

paddy147 wrote: »

Court 44 is for motoring offences.

I was in there today supporting a friend who was up for a speeding offence.

How did they get on? why did it go to court?

paddy147

hondasam wrote: »

How did they get on? why did it go to court?

My friend decided to question the location of the speed camera van and also request a speed calibration cert for that particular speed camera van.

Judge put the case back till september

hondasam

paddy147 wrote: »

My friend decided to question the location of the speed camera van and also request a speed calibration cert for that particular speed camera van.

Judge put the case back till september

So your friend is trying to get off the speeding fine. Keep us posted please.

paddy147

hondasam wrote: »

So your friend is trying to get off the speeding fine. Keep us posted please.

80kph zone that drops into a 60kph zone on the M1 motorway.

Camera van parked right after the 60kph sign and also hidden/obscured from view by a wall.

My friend was nabbed for doing 70kph.

So my friend raised 2 important questions about the matter and the camera van in question..

hondasam

paddy147 wrote: »

80kph zone that drops into a 60kph zone on the M1 motorway.

Camera van parked right after the 60kph sign and also hidden/obscured from view by a wall.

My fdried was nabbed for doing 70kph.

So my friend raised 2 important questions about the matter and the camera van in question..

It was the Gatso not the go safe van?

paddy147

hondasam wrote: »

It was the Gatso not the go safe van?

It was the new camera van with all the markings on it,he was nabbed last November.

cadaliac

paddy147 wrote: »

My friend decided to question the location of the speed camera van and also request a speed calibration cert for that particular speed camera van.

Judge put the case back till september

DId they just wait for he summons or did hey request a court date? If they just waited for the summons, they have nothing to loose by requesting the cert and/or location because they would have got double the points once it goes to court anyway, afaik.

paddy147

cadaliac wrote: »

DId they just wait for he summons or did hey request a court date? If they just waited for the summons, they have nothing to loose by requesting the cert and/or location because they would have got double the points once it goes to court anyway, afaik.

waited for summons,afaik.

I know he had a phone conversation with the garda in question a few weeks ago,before the court today,but the garda didnt want to know or hear anything from my friend on the matter.

hondasam

paddy147 wrote: »

It was the new camera van with all the markings on it,he was nabbed last November.

He thought it was an 80 zone?
Once you see the sign for the speed camera you know you might get done if you are over the limit. I see these all the time and I have never seen them hidden tbh.

paddy147

hondasam wrote: »

He thought it was an 80 zone?
Once you see the sign for the speed camera you know you might get done if you are over the limit. I see these all the time and I have never seen them hidden tbh.

Hes questioning the location of the speed camera van with regards to whether he was clocked doing 70kph while still in the 80kph zone.

He is also requesting a calibration cert for that speed camera van.

The van was located right after the 60kph sign,on a grass verge and that verge and the camera vans line of sight is obscured by a very large wall that juts out at the start of the grass verge.

You cant see the camera van untill you are more or less right on it.:(

He feels that this is a form of entrapment and is nothing to do with safety at all.

jhegarty

I guess the tip is the start making complaints about your post as soon as your see the speed camera flash.

hondasam

paddy147 wrote: »

Hes questioning the location of the speed camera van with regards to whether he was clocked doing 70kph while still in the 80kph zone.

He is also requesting a calibration cert for that speed camera van.

The van was located right after the 60kph sign,on a grass verge and that verge and the camera vans line of sight is obscured by a very large wall that juts out at the start of the grass verge.

You cant see the camera van untill you are more or less right on it.:(

He feels that this is a form of entrapment and is nothing to do with safety at all.

Are the signs telling you there is a speed camera hidden?
You are not supposed to see the van, the sign with the camera alerts you to slow down.
Bear in mind you have plenty of time to slow down once you see the sign alerting you to a speed van, you have to be real close for them to clock you.
I don't think he has a chance but it will be interesting to see how he gets on.

paddy147

hondasam wrote: »

Are the signs telling you there is a speed camera hidden?
You are not supposed to see the van, the sign with the camera alerts you to slow down.
Bear in mind you have plenty of time to slow down once you see the sign alerting you to a speed van, you have to be real close for them to clock you.
I don't think he has a chance but it will be interesting to see how he gets on.

Theres no signs warning you of a speed camera van at all,its one of those new camera vans.

And the van was hidden/obscured from view,so no one could see it,untill they were right on it.

My friend took pictures of the road and its layout and the speed zones and he had them in court with him today.