Traffic Corps member fined 3500 for no tax/nct!!

Buck Fizz

They'd even screw themselves over!!!

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/garda-guilty-of-driving-without-tax-566810.html

colm_mcm

Must have been out for a while!

Is there more to this story?

Buck Fizz

One of the most experienced members of the Garda Traffic Corps in Limerick had no NCT and no Tax on his car last year.
Michael O'Shaughnessy based at Henry Street Garda Station and from Kiltiernan Cross, Croagh, County Limerick has been asked to pay a contribution to charity after he was caught by the head of the Garda Traffic Corps on two dates in May 2011.
Live 95FM's Eric Clarke reports from Limerick District Court...

****
Inspector Garda Paul Reidy - who is head of Limerick's garda traffic corp - said in evidence that he saw Michael O'Shaughnessy driving a car that had no tax or NCT just outside Henry St Garda Station at Mill Lane on the 9th of May and the 31st of May
Garda O'Shaughnessy who contested the charges against him said in direct evidence he was not even in Limerick city on the 31st of May and claimed that on May 9th he was driving a different vehicle.
Judge Eugene O'Kelly accepted the inspectors evidence and said it was troubling that in his own defence Michael O'Shaughnessy claimed to be one of the most experienced members of the Garda Traffic Corp in Limerick who presumably has prosecuted hundreds of people for similar offences.
He asked the Garda to contribute 3,500 euro to Saint Vincent De Paul and adjourned the matter to October 31st when the judge said he will finalise his order.

He quite clearly thought he was above the law because he was a part of it.

Now he knows better.

Mr Simpson

He must have really p*ssed of that inspector over something.

monkeypants

mmcn90 wrote: »

He must have really p*ssed of that inspector over something.

I presume the Inspector had a word with him the first time round and likes telling people twice about as much as the rest of us do.

_Kaiser_

Pay money to charity? (Presumably based on your income) No points for no NCT etc?

Sounds alright really when you hear of other people getting the cars taken off them, impound/collection fees etc for the same offence.

Where do I sign up?

(EDIT: I actually am one of those "suckers" who pays these things on time but isn't it nice to see there's "alternatives" out there)

dave1982

So much for scratch my back and i'll scratch your's at the traffic core

_Kaiser_

dave1982 wrote: »

So much for scratch my back and i'll scratch your's at the traffic core

But (based on that report) that IS what happened - no car seizure, no penalty points... just make a charitable donation that I'm sure is based on ability to pay.

Doubt you or I would get away with that - especially if we'd been caught twice for it.

Mr Simpson

monkeypants wrote: »

I presume the Inspector had a word with him the first time round and likes telling people twice about as much as the rest of us do.

Yeah I'm just surprised he did him for it, I'd say its rare an Inspector checks tax and summonses for such.

biko

Good, means no-one is safe.

Voodoomelon

I'd say Inspector Reidy has lots of friends in the corps now...

pah

People often get the chance to make a donation to avoid conviction for a first offence. Its a hefty enough one too.

Mr Simpson

pah wrote: »

People often get the chance to make a donation to avoid conviction for a first offence. Its a hefty enough one too.

€3,500 does seem like an awful lot. I wonder should that be €350 (I'm pretty sure I heard that figure on the radio earlier)

mhigh86

Judge Eugene O'Kelly accepted the inspectors evidence and said it was troubling that in his own defence Michael O'Shaughnessy claimed to be one of the most experienced members of the Garda Traffic Corp in Limerick who presumably has prosecuted hundreds of people for similar offences.
He asked the Garda to contribute 3,500 euro to Saint Vincent De Paul and adjourned the matter to October 31st when the judge said he will finalise his order.[/QUOTE]

there more to come than the 3,500 fine,,,,,,

Lorgach

I wonder if he'll take it out on the next few drivers he pulls up for traffic offences

but1er

just came across the topic on niall boylan at night on classic hits 4fm at the moment!!

think the judge was quite harsh but it put him in his place he aint above the law

Guy:Incognito

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

(EDIT: I actually am one of those "suckers" who pays these things on time but isn't it nice to see there's "alternatives" out there)

The alternative being paying 3500? No thanks.

Lorgach wrote: »

I wonder if he'll take it out on the next few drivers he pulls up for traffic offences

Fining/issueing points for traffic offences isnt "taking it out" on people, its doing his job.

Anan1

Fair play to the Gardaí.

Ded_Zebra

Very glad to see that they aren't above the law even if he thought he was

Senna

There's some guards even the guards don't like, he is probably one of them.

goz83

As a law keeper/enforcer, he knows better. If you are a member of the defence forces and you're caught acting the maggot, you get every book thrown at you. As a member of the guards, he should expect no less, because he knows better than to drive without tax and nct. He also lied to the judge, so he's lucky that he wasn't thrown into the cells to think long and hard about what he'd done. On the naughty step now there Michael you bold boy.

si_guru

He knowingly broke the law - no excuse what-so-ever. He lied about it to try and get off. He did this more than once.

He obviously believes Gards are above the law and if one of the boys stopped him at a checkpoint that they would wave him past with a "sure it'll be grand" - and yet he keeps his license, job and pension.

I'd say the inspector postion was used to report him to avoid any comebacks from the ranks to whoever actually did report it.

pah

si_guru wrote: »

He knowingly broke the law - no excuse what-so-ever. He lied about it to try and get off. He did this more than once.

He obviously believes Gards are above the law and if one of the boys stopped him at a checkpoint that they would wave him past with a "sure it'll be grand" - and yet he keeps his license, job and pension.

I'd say the inspector postion was used to report him to avoid any comebacks from the ranks to whoever actually did report it.

Why wouldn't he? This is a minor Road Traffic Infringement, with no legislation to revoke a persons licence or precedent to sack them

tayto lover

It is good to see that the law works for everyone and that nobody is above it.

si_guru

pah wrote: »

Why wouldn't he? This is a minor Road Traffic Infringement, with no legislation to revoke a persons licence or precedent to sack them

No, in fact not having an NCT is 5 points - there is legislation to revoke a license. And same way this could kind of act could end the career of a taxi driver, sales rep or truck driver - you'd think the same should apply to a member of the traffic corp.

It's not the motoring act that bothers me - it's more the underlying sentiment of "being above the law". Lying in court is "contempt". Surely a basic requirment of being a gard should be being HONEST.

But you bring up another point - of precendence. If ever find myself foul of the law I will expect my sentence to be "pay a tiny portion of your salary to a charity".

limklad

mmcn90 wrote: »

He must have really p*ssed of that inspector over something.

I agree. It sounds like the Garda Ombudsman need to investigate for any irregularities amongst the Traffic Corps at this time. They do not need an official report for them to investigate, just hear about it, like Garda on Joe Soap to investigate any hint of breaches of Law.

I can definitely tell you one thing. Henry Garda Station in limerick and surrounding areas is fully covered by CCTV Camera's and that Garda O’Shaughnessy and Inspector Paul Reidy stories can be confirm or denied by that video evidence on what car Garda O’Shaughnessy on the streets around it on those particular dates. How hard is it to look at video evidence and bring it to Court. Judge Eugene O’Kelly is short sighted behaviour, if he did not see any video evidence on that matter, especially when it was brought to his attention about a dispute in the Force. He should have request the Garda Ombudsman need to investigate for any irregularities and report back on what really happen on those dates.

Now if the Judge took the word of the Inspector over his Garda without that video evidence, that is worrying in itself in the performance of the Judge Eugene O'Kelly. Not one reporter make reference to Video Evidence. So if a Member of the Force who sore an Oath to Tell the Truth in Court is lying in Court here So which is it?
Inspector Paul Reilly have the confort of the support of Judge Eugene O’Kelly.
Looks Like I will have to keep an open eye on Judge O'Kelly performance in Court.

If there is no video Evidence to support or discount the claims, then I have huge concerns about the Gardai in Limerick.

There is also conflicting reporting about this stories, Was the Car on Mill lane or was it in the Garda Car Park. The Car park is Private property of the Garda Siochana as a registered company. Mill lane is a Public street.

There is more to the Story on the Irish Times which adds to the issue.
http://m.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0914/1224324009908.html

Solicitor Dan O’Gorman said his client was not informed about the charges until the middle of September and questioned whether this was best police practice.He described his client as the most experienced member of the traffic corps in Limerick, with an exemplary record and claimed there was a “subtext” to the case.Mr O’Gorman told the court there were difficulties between members and management of the traffic corps at Henry Street Garda station over allowances.Judge Eugene O’Kelly said his court was not an industrial appeals tribunal and he did not want to be “bogged down” by a dispute within the Traffic Corps.Judge O’Kelly said he was satisfied the charges had been proven against Garda O’Shaughnessy, but said he was troubled about the implications a court conviction would have for the garda’s career.

Irish examiner wrote:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/senior-traffic-garda-had-no-car-tax-or-nct-cert-207526.html
O’Shaughnessy, in evidence, said he kept a diary and denied he was in the car park on May 9 at a time stated by Insp Reidy. He said on the date in question, he was never in the car park as he was off duty.

In reply to Michael Murray, state solicitor, he said the inspector was "mistaken" in his evidence. Asked by Mr Murray if it was possible he came into town on a day off, he said when he was off he did not want to spend time in the city or in his work space.

The other thing is Written evidence that Garda use in Court. If Garda O'Shaughnessy lied bout his written evidence in this case. Then it is proven that he has no problems lying in court, then any previous convictions related to his previous written evidence that he supplied would make those conviction unsafe in my view.

It about time that All Gardai be force to wear video and audio recording while on duty that cannot be tampered or edited so it can be used for Court convictions. In the UK some Police forces have done that especially on foot patrols and cars which they must submit the full day recording for records. I believe there is penalties for failing to product that record. It is about time it is brought in here. It will show the unscrupulous Gardai for what they are and keep good Gardai record clean. I am also of the view that that Judges should be banned from striking anything from the record of events on Court proceedings.

I also of the view that Court viewing should be allow in public view via TV, Internet etc, since all Court proceeding are been done except for Courts that are done "in Camera" which means not open for public viewing. This will also keep Judges Integrity above suspicion and the Public will have a better understanding what Court procedures are about and will have more interest on what is happening in the daily lives and the pain that most of us are oblivious of.

keithclancy

limklad wrote: »

I also of the view that Court viewing should be allow in public view via TV, Internet etc, since all Court proceeding are been done except for Courts that are done "in Camera" which means not open for public viewing. This will also keep Judges Integrity above suspicion and the Public will have a better understanding what Court procedures are about and will have more interest on what is happening in the daily lives and the pain that most of us are oblivious of.

Nothing stopping you from attending.

Its not Judge Judy though.

spiggotpaddy

He'll probably arrest his own granny now for no bell on her bike.

keithclancy

spiggotpaddy wrote: »

He'll probably arrest his own granny now for no bell on her bike.

You laugh but i've seen a checkpoint set up outside a school over here in the Netherlands.

Fining kids for having no lights/reflectors.

The parents have 30 days to pay.

limklad

Also , I also believe the Fine of €3500 is severe as normally those convicted normally gives only €200 for Tax and NCT violations. And many of those are earning mmore that Garda O'Shaughnessy. It is another Issue I have with Eugene O’Kelly, the non consistence on his sentences as well as his judgement. Jude O'Kelly in his long years of Practising the law have above reasonable doubt that people lie in Court.
Why the Unusually Large Fine to Charity, if he admits that this would severely hamper Garda O'Shaughnessy Career.

Wille O'Dea got off Lightly for lying in Court with a signed Affidavit, and Willie O'Dea is a Trained barrister and knew the implications of the Affidavit would have. The DPP got him off there, so it never got to Court. The DPP which is not accountable by law to anybody including the minister of Justice denied Justice against his victim for the Slander. The Claims in Public were that he already suffered when he resigned his low ranking minister Job and still receiving an Income of TD's and expenses on top of that and a pension for serving as a minister when he quit that Job.

I am for Good Policing and Good Honest Justice. Not incompetents or corrupt bunches who put one law for themselves and add extra laws on others.

limklad

keithclancy wrote: »

Nothing stopping you from attending.

Its not Judge Judy though.

That Fine, if they allow people to enter unless the hearing for the John Geary for 4 Murders in Newcastle West Court where the Guards block the streets around the Court House preventing people from getting into the Court.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1120/newcastlewest.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=periMiX0r8I

Also What happens when the Court is full, i.e. No access. which prove my point that they need to give the Public Access via, TV, internet to what going on in the Courts. On TV you can have responsible people commentating on what the procedures to explain what is going on. The only thing happens here without access is that misunderstanding, rumours and lies will be told.

Judge Judy or Not, It is still needs to be made available to all, by other means if Health and & safely or security are reasons for the public denied entry. They need to be better easily accessed transparency to what going on in the courts and available recording for those who are unable to attend for variety of reasons. Lack of information is far more dangerous than information given.

I read Newspaper articles over the years about Judges complaining or commenting about that the Public do not see what is going on in society and that Society is blinded to what is depths of Crimes and hardship which Civil cases they have to endure. right now because the emotional less text of the Courts records this cannot be verifiable. As in Court Proof is Golden, otherwise it hear say. If is easily access by anyone then it should be easily seen.

The Public would also get a better reading on which Solictors and barrister performance and that would be transparent for the public to see.

keithclancy

limklad wrote: »

That Fine, if they allow people to enter unless the hearing for the John Geary for 4 Murders in Newcastle West Court where the Guards block the streets around the Court House preventing people from getting into the Court.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1120/newcastlewest.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=periMiX0r8I

Also What happens when the Court is full, i.e. No access. which prove my point that they need to give the Public Access via, TV, internet to what going on in the Courts. On TV you can have responsible people commentating on what the procedures to explain what is going on. The only thing happens here without access is that misunderstanding, rumours and lies will be told.

Judge Judy or Not, It is still needs to be made available to all, by other means if Health and & safely or security are reasons for the public denied entry. They need to be better easily accessed transparency to what going on in the courts and available recording for those who are unable to attend for variety of reasons. Lack of information is far more dangerous than information given.

I read Newspaper articles over the years about Judges complaining or commenting about that the Public do not see what is going on in society and that Society is blinded to what is depths of Crimes and hardship which Civil cases they have to endure. right now because the emotional less text of the Courts records this cannot be verifiable. As in Court Proof is Golden, otherwise it hear say. If is easily access by anyone then it should be easily seen.

The Public would also get a better reading on which Solictors and barrister performance and that would be transparent for the public to see.

If the court is that full its because people want to see the show.

Ireland is already very open, you can view the Dail and Oireachteas anytime you want online.

You can go and see a court sitting whenever you like.

To have a publicly televised court sitting wouldn't give a fair trial.

What if some guy was accused of child molestation for example and was found innocent ? Do you think that everyone would watch it till the end of the 'show' ?

What do you think would be the odds of some nutball walking up and stabbing him because he didn't get the whole story ?

Completely disagree, the courts are already open and you can go and sit in your local court, but nobody does.

People are only interested when its the high profile interesting stuff, cheaper than a sky subscription.

tayto lover

limklad wrote: »

That Fine, if they allow people to enter unless the hearing for the John Geary for 4 Murders in Newcastle West Court where the Guards block the streets around the Court House preventing people from getting into the Court.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1120/newcastlewest.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=periMiX0r8I

Also What happens when the Court is full, i.e. No access. which prove my point that they need to give the Public Access via, TV, internet to what going on in the Courts. On TV you can have responsible people commentating on what the procedures to explain what is going on. The only thing happens here without access is that misunderstanding, rumours and lies will be told.

Judge Judy or Not, It is still needs to be made available to all, by other means if Health and & safely or security are reasons for the public denied entry. They need to be better easily accessed transparency to what going on in the courts and available recording for those who are unable to attend for variety of reasons. Lack of information is far more dangerous than information given.

I read Newspaper articles over the years about Judges complaining or commenting about that the Public do not see what is going on in society and that Society is blinded to what is depths of Crimes and hardship which Civil cases they have to endure. right now because the emotional less text of the Courts records this cannot be verifiable. As in Court Proof is Golden, otherwise it hear say. If is easily access by anyone then it should be easily seen.

The Public would also get a better reading on which Solictors and barrister performance and that would be transparent for the public to see.

I used to attend the District Court when I was not working just to see what was happening. I found it very interesting too but in all fairness there is nothing underhand, mysterious or threatening to society occurring there. Of course there are days when there are controversial cases there and there is plenty of interest in them but the court will only hold so many and some will be disappointed. Most days there is nothing to stop you going and sitting in.

Turner

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

But (based on that report) that IS what happened - no car seizure, no penalty points... just make a charitable donation that I'm sure is based on ability to pay.

Doubt you or I would get away with that - especially if we'd been caught twice for it.

You are a bit misinformed here..

Penalty points have absolutely nothing to do with the convicting judge. He has no power over them.

Once convicted the 5 points would have automatically been added to the Garda's license.

Oh and for the record. The fine received by this man is 10 times what it normally would have been.

I dont know the Judge but I have never in my career seen fines totalling that much for minor road traffic offences.

But of course people here will think he got off lightly, and him and the inspector were scratching each others back and that Gardai are above the law etc etc

As always, they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.

Lissavane

Turner wrote: »

You are a bit misinformed here..

Penalty points have absolutely nothing to do with the convicting judge. He has no power over them.

Once convicted the 5 points would have automatically been added to the Garda's license..

I'm not sure that this man has been convicted. My understanding is that a voluntary payment to charity or, what was once called the Court "poorbox", is an option sometimes offered by Judges in lieu of a conviction and is often much more onerous than the fine defined in legislation. It penalises the defendant but does not result in a record of conviction.

This case has been adjourned until 31 October and I expect that, if the defendant has made the donation of 3.5k by that date, there will not be a conviction.

snubbleste

Sure the Garda will be disciplined within the force anyway?
Aslo, did I hear that if a Garda gets a court fine above €X amount that it is grounds for dismissal?

Lissavane

snubbleste wrote: »

Sure the Garda will be disciplined within the force anyway?
Aslo, did I hear that if a Garda gets a court fine above €X amount that it is grounds for dismissal?

With respect, I don't think you get it.

This was a request by the Judge that the defendant make a voluntary contribution to a charity in lieu (meaning instead) of a conviction. That is not a "court fine".

If the defendant fails to make the contribution, then a conviction would ensue unless the Judge decided to apply the Probation Act.

It's pretty clear that the Judge does not want to convict if he/she can avoid it.

snubbleste

I understand all that Lissavane, as I actually read the thread and the musings of the bewigged one.
My query is if the Garda gets a conviction and a fine that exceeds amount €X, that it is grounds for dismissal? I think I heard/read it somewhere yesterday.

Lissavane

snubbleste wrote: »

I understand all that Lissavane, as I actually read the thread and the musings of the bewigged one.
My query is if the Garda gets a conviction and a fine that exceeds amount €X, that it is grounds for dismissal? I think I heard/read it somewhere yesterday.

I don't know. Bankruptcy is a ground of dismissal for all Civil Servants.

Gardai are Civil Servants, contrary to some opinion. They are a branch of the Civil power of the State beside Revenue and some others.

Pottler

tayto lover wrote: »

It is good to see that the law works for everyone and that nobody is above it.

Yes, indeed. Hehe hee hoo hooo. Sorry, you were being serious, weren't you? Ok. Grand. Pffffft.:pac::D:pac:

Esel

Penalty for no NCT is (on conviction) 5 penalty points and fine of up to €1500.

He got off very lightly, especially as he contested the charge.

transvestite

Our man in Havana

If he pays the €3500 he will have the charges struck out. No points and no conviction.