SUMMONS FOR DRUG DRIVING OFFENCE

PioneerCdj

I wanted to find out instead of having to ask my solicotor as i owe him money already but is there a time limit for the summons to be issued i was caught in november last year and i seen on the citizen advice web site that they have 6 months to issue the summons.. is that still the law or is it different now any help appreciated just would love to no am i grand or not

P.S Was asked to move this to here from the after hours forum

Greyfoot

PioneerCdj wrote: »

I wanted to find out instead of having to ask my solicotor as i owe him money already...

Spent the money on gear already?

kildare.17hmr

Dont think that 6 month statute bared thing would apply to your case

What did ya do??

PioneerCdj

Greyfoot wrote: »

Spent the money on gear already?

sorry man i aint no junky

cursai

PioneerCdj wrote: »

I wanted to find out instead of having to ask my solicotor as i owe him money already but is there a time limit for the summons to be issued i was caught in november last year and i seen on the citizen advice web site that they have 6 months to issue the summons.. is that still the law or is it different now any help appreciated just would love to no am i grand or not

P.S Was asked to move this to here from the after hours forum

has to be issued within six months but could take another couple to get to you. Could have issued and sent to the court at the last week. Your not out of it yet.

PioneerCdj

kildare.17hmr wrote: »

Dont think that 6 month statute bared thing would apply to your case

What did ya do??

smoked a joint when driving out of town gaurds seen me and pulled me over.. they found nothing but new by my eyes that i had smoking..

PioneerCdj

PioneerCdj wrote: »

smoked a joint when driving out of town gaurds seen me and pulled me over.. they found nothing but new by my eyes that i had smoking..

ya sack,
people like you give decent dope smokers a bad name.
probably trolling anyway

PioneerCdj

i only recieved another summons about 2 weeks ago was fully sure that it was for the driving offence but turned out to be public order.. i doubt they would forget about it as they dont really like me but theres always a chance

jdooley28

You sound like a fine upstanding citizen!

PioneerCdj

urbanledge wrote: »

ya sack,
people like you give decent dope smokers a bad name.
probably trolling anyway

you can think what ever u want about me but u dnt no me i was just caught in the wrong place at the wrong time..
and when u say trolling i have no idea on what ur on about
only came on this for info

Call me Al

The Gardai have six months to have the summons issued from the district court. They then have maybe another six or so months to serve the summons.

My husband got.a fixed penalty notice for speeding last April. We didn't see the letter for a full year later though (misfiled in the house).
We looked into it with a Garda friend of ours and it turned out that he was supposed to have had his day in court last october, but they never served the summons. The case was thrown out on the day as clearly my other half didn't turn up and they had no proof a summons was served.

PioneerCdj

jdooley28 wrote: »

You sound like a fine upstanding citizen!

sounds like that alright

PioneerCdj

Call me Al wrote: »

The Gardai have six months to have the summons issued from the district court. They then have maybe another six or so months to serve the summons.

My husband got.a fixed penalty notice for speeding last April. We didn't see the letter for a full year later though (misfiled in the house).
We looked into it with a Garda friend of ours and it turned out that he was supposed to have had his day in court last october, but they never served the summons. The case was thrown out on the day as clearly my other half didn't turn up and they had no proof a summons was served.

ur husband was lucky enough to get away with it them, i taught they had 6 months to issue me the summons must of read it the wrong way.. thanks for ur info appreciate it

firefly08

Wait...what were you charged with, if they didn't find anything?

Anan1

firefly08 wrote: »

Wait...what were you charged with, if they didn't find anything?

Having dodgy eyes, see post #6.

firefly08

WTF that is evidence of a crime nowadays? :eek:

tossy

It's evidence of being a junkie,because naturally if you smoke a joint you are a junky - in the same way that evryone who drinks a pint is an alcoholic

Driving while doing either of them is not to be condoned of course but personally speaking i'd rather take my chances with the junky

bazzachazza

PioneerCdj wrote: »

you can think what ever u want about me but u dnt no me i was just caught in the wrong place at the wrong time..
and when u say trolling i have no idea on what ur on about
only came on this for info

Caught in the wrong place at the wrong time !!!

From your history sounds like everywhere is the wrong place.

VictorRomeo

bazzachazza wrote: »

Caught in the wrong place at the wrong time !!!

From your history sounds like everywhere is the wrong place.

To my unstoned eyes, it's more like he was caught in the right place at the right time. All a matter of perspective. Betcha he'd do it again.

166man

This thread really isn't going anywhere....

Thatnastyboy

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Maybe not a junkie. Buts hes defiantly a prick. No difference between driving stoned and driving drunk.

Besides at the point where you owe your lawyer money and get served twice in two weeks, you should know that the problem is most definitely yours and not somebody elses like the OP alludes too.

In the eyes of the law maybe not but there is.

But, I agree with the sentiment, it's still a no-no.


Id say you will still be done op, well, did they take a blood sample at the station? big clamp down on it the past few years, a good buddy of mine got 4 years off the road and a €3500 fine for "drug driving" coming on 4 years ago now, he got his licence back after 3 years and is paying through the nostrils for insurance on a 1.0 micra.

Ben D Bus

PioneerCdj wrote: »

they dont really like

I'm not ****ing surprised.

Heroditas

166man wrote: »

This thread really isn't going anywhere....

True, but the OP most certainly is going somewhere........ court!

PioneerCdj

ha i have to laugh i come on here asking for a bit of advice yet again im been called a junkie and a prick, yeah cant ask for advice with out been called name, here im not saying no more thanks to any one that helped im done with this thread

SilverBell

PioneerCdj wrote: »

ha i have to laugh i come on here asking for a bit of advice yet again im been called a junkie and a prick, yeah cant ask for advice with out been called name, here im not saying no more thanks to any one that helped im done with this thread

I'm not condoning what you did one bit, but I agree with you that its a shame that you cant come on here without being personally abused.

wonski

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

In the eyes of the law maybe not but there is.

But, I agree with the sentiment, it's still a no-no.


Id say you will still be done op, well, did they take a blood sample at the station? big clamp down on it the past few years, a good buddy of mine got 4 years off the road and a €3500 fine for "drug driving" coming on 4 years ago now, he got his licence back after 3 years and is paying through the nostrils for insurance on a 1.0 micra.

They had to test him (blood/urine sample) i suppose?
I have no sympathy for anyone driving stoned anyway, but to be done, there has to be some evidence?

OT In Poland they test drivers on the spot for drugs - if it tested positive you would go for blood test, and then charged accordingly.
Not that i am big fan of polish police service or anything, but they do take care of young lads having a fun behind the wheel.

wonski

PioneerCdj wrote: »

ha i have to laugh i come on here asking for a bit of advice yet again im been called a junkie and a prick, yeah cant ask for advice with out been called name, here im not saying no more thanks to any one that helped im done with this thread

Legal advice would be much better place to look for support. Did you expect people who truly love driving, and some drive a lot, to be your friends given the info you provided?

Thatnastyboy

wonski wrote: »

They had to test him (blood/urine sample) i suppose?
I have no sympathy for anyone driving stoned anyway, but to be done, there has to be some evidence?

Indeed there does,

The op must have been arrested under the guards assumption that he was under the influence of a controlled substance,

The Guard would then have processed the OP and taken relevant samples to be analysed and used as evidence,

If it went to court without such evidence (which I doubt), considering the OP wasn't caught with anything, I very much doubt a conviction could carry on the Guards assumption that he was stoned,

He could have had hayfever or conjunctivitis..

( this is in no way legal advice in any shape or form, i work in construction, not law)

firefly08

If it went to court without such evidence (which I doubt), considering the OP wasn't caught with anything, I very much doubt a conviction could carry on the Guards assumption that he was stoned,

Well his full and comprehensive confession on www.boards.ie might swing it for the Guards. Just sayin'

SilverBell

firefly08 wrote: »

Well his full and comprehensive confession on www.boards.ie might swing it for the Guards. Just sayin'

So the internet gushings of the man called PioneerCdj can be linked in a court of law to an actual person...?
"Your honour, we have traced the felon to Boards.ie".

Sorry, but I am reminded of this scene........



If the Guards have goofed up the summons it wont really matter anyway.

R0bb01987

If they dont personally deliver the summons to u as in directly hand it to u within six months there is a chance the case will be thrown ot on the day as I found ot to my discust. Didnt gt mine bt the guard rang me said the date and that it was in the post. Didnt gt it. Showed up on the day and he said as he didnt hand ot to me I could of nt shown up, since I did they issue a new one there and then and gave it to me. If u dnt gt it and dnt show up there is a chance it will be thrown ot bt they can also reissue it if they ses fit. Up to u mate.

Greyfoot

PioneerCdj wrote: »

ha i have to laugh i come on here asking for a bit of advice yet again im been called a junkie and a prick, yeah cant ask for advice with out been called name, here im not saying no more thanks to any one that helped im done with this thread

Nobody called you a junkie mate, guess most of us had a funny one on occasions, its that most people(even if you were honest, I`ll give you that)wont give you any advice given your post count and all.

Also in this situation(and you should be familiar with it, since its not your first case)you should just sit tight and wait for the summons and hope for the best.

firefly08

So the internet gushings of the man called PioneerCdj can be linked in a court of law to an actual person...?

Yes!

corktina

what Gear were you in? :rolleyes:

MrDerp

If you weren't blood tested, he was just trying to give you a scare. The opinion of a Guard based on eye condition would get the Guard a roasting off the judge.

Roll a doob, stick on the kettle and forget about it.

Delancey

This business of 6 months for a summons is the cause of a lot of confusion ( and false hope for people facing court ).

It goes like this : The Gardai have 6 months to apply for a summons , any later and its not going to happen. The summons may not be served for several more months but is still valid .

Just because 6 months may have elapsed since the date of the offence does not mean someone is ' off the hook '.

Hooch

MrDerp wrote: »

If you weren't blood tested, he was just trying to give you a scare. The opinion of a Guard based on eye condition would get the Guard a roasting off the judge.

Roll a doob, stick on the kettle and forget about it.

Just to clear up a couple of things in the thread.

1 - A prosecution is taken under Section 4 (1) of the RTA 2010/2011 (the old Section 49(1). This is a simple prosecution for intoxication of a vehicle, be it drink, drugs or a combination of both. (Sub sections 2,3 and 4 deal with alcohol only readings for blood, urine and breath)

2 - Generally a blood or urine specimen is taken for suspected drug driving offence, however it is not a fatal flaw to the case if one isn't taken. (but there would have to be good reason why one wasn't taken)

3 - A Garda must form certain opinions in regards intoxication driving a vehicle before he can arrest. These opinions include but are not limited to driving manner, speech, eyes, ability to stand/walk correctly. These opinions ARE evidence for prosecution (even without a specimen taken) and are the basis for all Sec 4 (1) prosecutions. The result from the medical bureau of road safety finding a drug in the persons system is only an aid to the Gardas observations (as cannabis can stay in your system for up to three weeks).

4 - The OP says he wasn't caught with anything. Simple possession, Section 3 MDA, is just that....simple possession. The quantity doesn't matter so the Garda could quite easily have used seleotape to lift a tiny piece of cannabis herb from the car and that would be enough for a conviction once tested by the state lab. Most people are under the allusion that AGS need to find a bag of the stuff or a rolled joint......this is untrue.

5 - All Gardaí dealing with this gent can give evidence. So it could be 2, 3, 4 or more Gardaí giving evidence that he was intoxicated to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of an MPV in a public place.

6 - The driver would have been cautioned at the roadside and so anything he admitted will be given in evidence so if he admitted smoking as the Gardaí stopped him then that can be given during the case hearing.

Anan1

So a conviction can be based solely on the evidence of the Garda(í) that in their opinion the accused was driving while intoxicated?

Hooch

Anan1 wrote: »

So a conviction can be based solely on the evidence of the Garda(í) that in their opinion the accused was driving while intoxicated?

Yes. Same as a conviction for speeding is based solely on a Garda's evidence that he used a speed gun. Or for the likes of dangerous overtaking witnessed by a Garda and so on

Anan1

Hooch wrote: »

Yes. Same as a conviction for speeding is based solely on a Garda's evidence that he used a speed gun. Or for the likes of dangerous overtaking witnessed by a Garda and so on

Is this also theoretically possible for alcohol? The reason I ask is that i'd always assumed that a drink driving case would be thrown out without evidence of the accused's BAC.

Hooch

Anan1 wrote: »

Is this also theoretically possible for alcohol? The reason I ask is that i'd always assumed that a drink driving case would be thrown out without evidence of the accused's BAC.

Very possible, however again there would have to be good reason why a specimen wasn't taken.

IE, car stopped driver spoken to, opinions formed, driver arrested and then he legs it and somehow gets away from members. They could still take a prosecution under Sec 4 (1) based on their opinions at the road side (and a prosecution for frustrating a prosecution also)

MurderFace

So what happens if the person smoked yesterday and just happens to also be a bad driver? does somthing to warrant being pulled over but hasnt smoked in 24 hours, on talking to the driver nothing is found but there is still a strong smell in the car, can you still be taken for a blood test to be used as evidence? this is purely hypothetical of course but ive been wondering for a while now how is a conviction secured when the blood test would show the drug for so long after smoking it.

billy few mates

Out of interest OP, what happened after you were stopped and the Garda 'gazed into your eyes'....?
Did he take you down the station for processing (were there any tests done) or did they just send you on your way....?