Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Speeding and Cowboy Cop

Options
2

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    The OP said the guard had no proof. I think he is right. Just because the guards say they seen something doesnt mean it did.

    If we go by your basis there was a mis-carraige of justice in waterford. Did the 3/4 guards not get convicted for assault yet they gave testimony that they were not involved.

    They were convicted because there was proof.
    If he had no equipment then he can't prove it.
    If they have equipment they always show you you're speed.

    I don't think you know what the word proof means. If you are walking down the road with a Garda and a guy runs up to you and shoots you dead then throws the gun in a river would there be no proof of the act even though the Garda witnessed it? Witness testimony is evidence, no matter wether it is from a Garda or not, and a case can be proved by testimony alone.


  • Registered Users Posts: 42 Conn2012


    MagicSean wrote: »



    I don't think you know what the word proof means. If you are walking down the road with a Garda and a guy runs up to you and shoots you dead then throws the gun in a river would there be no proof of the act even though the Garda witnessed it? Witness testimony is evidence, no matter wether it is from a Garda or not, and a case can be proved by testimony alone.

    Aaa come on now.. ( The body is the proof the crime happened, not the gun btw ) We are on about speeding, he says I was speeding he has to prove I was over 120... In his opinion I was.. Surely he needs to tell me my exact speed? And if he could he'd done me for speeding right?

    What we doing with all the guns / cameras.. Jus stick gaurd on side road and let them hav crack guessing who's over?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Conn2012 wrote: »
    Aaa come on now.. ( The body is the proof the crime happened, not the gun btw ) We are on about speeding, he says I was speeding he has to prove I was over 120... In his opinion I was.. Surely he needs to tell me my exact speed? And if he could he'd done me for speeding right?

    What we doing with all the guns / cameras.. Jus stick gaurd on side road and let them hav crack guessing who's over?

    If he was travelling at 120 kmph and op was gaining ground on him then that is proof op was speeding. It's mathematical proof. You can obvioulsy try and challenge the accuracy of his speedometer or honesty of his testimony. I'm not sure where you get this idea that he needs some kind of electronic proof?


  • Registered Users Posts: 42 Conn2012


    MagicSean wrote: »

    If he was travelling at 120 kmph and op was gaining ground on him then that is proof op was speeding. It's mathematical proof. You can obvioulsy try and challenge the accuracy of his speedometer or honesty of his testimony. I'm not sure where you get this idea that he needs some kind of electronic proof?

    My idea I more like.. I give u example.. The guards opinion a driver was drunk- he still needs proof - a roadside breath test / a validated machine at station or a doc to take blood / urine.. Seal it and send it to be tested in a lab.. The even at the lab two analysts need to sign it...

    In speeding the gun/cam needs to be tested and calibrated to b proof.. Not jus his own cars speedometer?? And if he's watchin me in rear view is he not more of a hazard? :/


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    If he had no equipment then he can't prove it.

    I think that you are referring to the rule where the uncorroborated evidence of a Garda cannot result in conviction for speeding.

    It seems that there was no speed detection equipment to corroborate the Garda's evidence. However, this does not mean that the Garda's evidence cannot be corroborated.

    A second Garda could give the necessary corroborative evidence.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Conn2012 wrote: »
    My idea I more like.. I give u example.. The guards opinion a driver was drunk- he still needs proof - a roadside breath test / a validated machine at station or a doc to take blood / urine.. Seal it and send it to be tested in a lab.. The even at the lab two analysts need to sign it...

    In speeding the gun/cam needs to be tested and calibrated to b proof.. Not jus his own cars speedometer?? And if he's watchin me in rear view is he not more of a hazard? :/

    Section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Acts 2010-2011 does not require a sample to prove drink driving.

    Mpre of a hazard? You're just grasping at straws now.


  • Registered Users Posts: 51,885 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    MagicSean wrote: »
    I don't think you know what the word proof means. If you are walking down the road with a Garda and a guy runs up to you and shoots you dead then throws the gun in a river would there be no proof of the act even though the Garda witnessed it? Witness testimony is evidence, no matter wether it is from a Garda or not, and a case can be proved by testimony alone.

    Very poor analogy there. Not like you.
    If that Garda took me to court I would have them produce their own car to have their speedometer examined to see the accuracy of it's calibration.
    A Garda, no more than anyone else, can guess your speed. The element of proof still exists in our courts. How can they tell the exact speed he was doing if they have no speed reading device?
    They can't say "Judge he was doing the same speed as us and we were doing 140 k.p.h.". and he could say "well my speedometer was reading just 120 k.p.h."
    There would be a serious doubt in that case and I couldn't see a Judge convicting him tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    Conn2012 wrote: »
    And if he's watchin me in rear view is he not more of a hazard? :/
    MagicSean wrote: »
    Mpre of a hazard? You're just grasping at straws now.

    You may be right, but there's an interesting point there.

    If the Garda driver was (first) watching the road ahead of him, doesn't it cast doubt on whether he could accurately (secondly) keep an eye on the speedomoter and (thirdly) accurately monitor the OP's distance behind him?

    Maybe the Garda could give convincing evidence of carefully watching all three, but it would be interesting to see how he would manage under cross-examination.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,721 ✭✭✭Al Capwned


    Conn2012 wrote: »
    Between 120 -160.. When I seem d cop car..

    And you call him a cowboy cop????

    Absolutely no idea of what speed you were doing... You SHOULD be done for dangerous driving if it's possible you were doing 160kph and not know about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 42 Conn2012


    MagicSean wrote: »

    Section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Acts 2010-2011 does not require a sample to prove drink driving.

    Mpre of a hazard? You're just grasping at straws now.


    When a Garda decides to prosecute someone for drink driving they must provide the court with certain proofs in order to obtain a conviction. The proofs required under Section 4(2), (3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 (i.e. blood, urine and breath test) are slightly different to that of Section 4(1) (driving while under the influence of an intoxicant).
    This charge is normally preferred where an arrested person has failed to provide a blood, urine or breath specimen with the result that it is not possible to bring a case under either Section 4(2), (3) or (4).
    For an offence under 4(1) the following elements or proofs must be given to the court;
    That you drove or attempted to drive
    That you must have driven or attempted to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle
    That your driving or attempt to drive took place in a public place
    That you were under the influence of an intoxicant to such a degree that you could not properly control the vehicle


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 42 Conn2012


    alproctor wrote: »

    And you call him a cowboy cop????

    Absolutely no idea of what speed you were doing... You SHOULD be done for dangerous driving if it's possible you were doing 160kph and not know about it.

    Now now don't be like that, i knew exactly and was in full control.. when he slowed I slowed I kept the distance.. Must of been at least 15 car lengths between us.. ( measuring/explaining distance would not b my strong point ) An the 'cowboy' was in regards to his tactics used to try gauge my speed..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Very poor analogy there. Not like you.
    If that Garda took me to court I would have them produce their own car to have their speedometer examined to see the accuracy of it's calibration.
    A Garda, no more than anyone else, can guess your speed. The element of proof still exists in our courts. How can they tell the exact speed he was doing if they have no speed reading device?
    They can't say "Judge he was doing the same speed as us and we were doing 140 k.p.h.". and he could say "well my speedometer was reading just 120 k.p.h."
    There would be a serious doubt in that case and I couldn't see a Judge convicting him tbh.

    The analogy is sound. Your claim is that witness testimony is not sufficient proof. My claim is that witness testimony can be sufficient.

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position though.
    You may be right, but there's an interesting point there.

    If the Garda driver was (first) watching the road ahead of him, doesn't it cast doubt on whether he could accurately (secondly) keep an eye on the speedomoter and (thirdly) accurately monitor the OP's distance behind him?

    Maybe the Garda could give convincing evidence of carefully watching all three, but it would be interesting to see how he would manage under cross-examination.

    All three are things every driver is supposed to be able to when driving at all times.
    Conn2012 wrote: »
    When a Garda decides to prosecute someone for drink driving they must provide the court with certain proofs in order to obtain a conviction. The proofs required under Section 4(2), (3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 (i.e. blood, urine and breath test) are slightly different to that of Section 4(1) (driving while under the influence of an intoxicant).
    This charge is normally preferred where an arrested person has failed to provide a blood, urine or breath specimen with the result that it is not possible to bring a case under either Section 4(2), (3) or (4).
    For an offence under 4(1) the following elements or proofs must be given to the court;
    That you drove or attempted to drive
    That you must have driven or attempted to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle
    That your driving or attempt to drive took place in a public place
    That you were under the influence of an intoxicant to such a degree that you could not properly control the vehicle

    All of which can be provided by witness testimony without any other supporting evidence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    alproctor wrote: »
    And you call him a cowboy cop????

    Absolutely no idea of what speed you were doing... You SHOULD be done for dangerous driving if it's possible you were doing 160kph and not know about it.

    Nice horse. Did you purchase him locally?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    MagicSean wrote: »
    All three are things every driver is supposed to be able to when driving at all times.

    I don't fully agree. When driving normally, a driver must be aware of his his speed and his surroundings, but it is a further stretch to be able to monitor the speed of the car which is behind you.

    I'm not saying that the Garda cannot give strong enough evidence to secure a conviction.

    What I'm saying is that perhaps cross-examination on this subject might cast enough doubt for an acquittal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 42 Conn2012


    MagicSean wrote: »

    The analogy is sound. Your claim is that witness testimony is not sufficient proof. My claim is that witness testimony can be sufficient.

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position though.



    All three are things every driver is supposed to be able to when driving at all times.



    All of which can be provided by witness testimony without any other supporting evidence.

    Should the person refuse or be unable to provide a sample..


  • Registered Users Posts: 51,885 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    MagicSean wrote: »
    The analogy is sound. Your claim is that witness testimony is not sufficient proof. My claim is that witness testimony can be sufficient.

    Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position though.



    I have read of cases where the Gardai were chasing people and where they gave evidence of the speed the car was travelling and the manner it was being driven in.
    In this case nobody was being chased and the Gardai had to slow down to measure the driver's speed on occasions. A good solicitor would make a laugh of this case in fairness if it ever went to court at all, which I doubt it will.
    The Gardai would also be in trouble with their own bosses if they mentioned in court that they sped up and slowed down to catch someone speeding.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Conn2012 wrote: »
    Should the person refuse or be unable to provide a sample..

    That is only one case where such a charge can be brought.

    I have read of cases where the Gardai were chasing people and where they gave evidence of the speed the car was travelling and the manner it was being driven in.
    In this case nobody was being chased and the Gardai had to slow down to measure the driver's speed on occasions. A good solicitor would make a laugh of this case in fairness if it ever went to court at all, which I doubt it will.
    The Gardai would also be in trouble with their own bosses if they mentioned in court that they sped up and slowed down to catch someone speeding.

    The op isn't being done for speeding though so an exact speed isn't required, just evidence of him exceeding a particular speed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 42 Conn2012


    MagicSean wrote: »
    The op isn't being done for speeding though so an exact speed isn't required, just evidence of him exceeding a particular speed.

    Thats brilliant... - I cant be done for speeding because they cant prove it.. But I can be done for 'driving without care' reson being = speeding... Are you kidding me ? :confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 51,885 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    MagicSean wrote: »
    That is only one case where such a charge can be brought.



    The op isn't being done for speeding though so an exact speed isn't required, just evidence of him exceeding a particular speed.

    Right. So if his solicitor asks "what speed was my client doing exactly Garda"? What answer will he get? We don't know exactly but it was over 120kph.
    It would be thrown out without question. If you can't tell the speed then don't try and make a case.
    I can't see this case going to court. The Gardai are not fools and I stand up for them very often on these threads but this case would be laughed out of court. Seriously. That's why it won't reach court.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog


    Estimated speed of a driver is done a lot of the time. Personally I have given evidence against a dozen or so drivers on dangerous driving which included speed which I was able to determine from the speedometer of the patrol car.

    Where you agree with it or not doesn't matter. It has and continues to be done


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 51,885 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    TheNog wrote: »
    Estimated speed of a driver is done a lot of the time. Personally I have given evidence against a dozen or so drivers on dangerous driving which included speed which I was able to determine from the speedometer of the patrol car.

    Where you agree with it or not doesn't matter. It has and continues to be done

    "Driving without due care" ?? How can he prove it? If the OP sticks to his story that he was exactly on the limit and that there was no question of an accident occurring while being observed by the Garda through his rear-view mirror I really cannot see a conviction in this case, if it ever gets that far.

    Would I be right in thinking that "driving without due care" is only mainly used when an accident has occurred and when Dangerous or Careless Driving would not stand or would not be proven?


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog



    "Driving without due care" ?? How can he prove it? If the OP sticks to his story that he was exactly on the limit and that there was no question of an accident occurring while being observed by the Garda through his rear-view mirror I really cannot see a conviction in this case, if it ever gets that far.

    Would I be right in thinking that "driving without due care" is only mainly used when an accident has occurred and when Dangerous or Careless Driving would not stand or would not be proven?

    I'm on a mobile so can't split your post above for my answer.

    Observing a persons driving through a rearview mirror is definitely more difficult but it can be done.

    Careless driving and dangerous driving would mainly used for traffic accidents. Remember dangerous driving includes speed so if the Garda gives evidence that the OP was driving in excess of the speed limit and he gives an estimation say between 140-160kph, the OP could be convicted and disqualified.

    If anything happens I would say it will a speeding fine or summons for dangerous driving if Garda believes OP was doing those speeds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,430 ✭✭✭RustyNut


    Zambia wrote: »
    At all times you should know the speed you are doing otherwise your not really in control.

    This surely can not be true.
    Say for example I'm driving in an 80k zone I set my limiter to make sure I don't exceed the posted limit and pay close attention to the road, other traffic, ped's etc but don't bother looking down at my speedo on the basis that I know I'm within the limit.
    How am I not really in control ?
    What would the offence be ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Right. So if his solicitor asks "what speed was my client doing exactly Garda"?

    In excess of 120kph


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    "Would I be right in thinking that "driving without due care" is only mainly used when an accident has occurred and when Dangerous or Careless Driving would not stand or would not be proven?

    'Careless driving' and 'driving without due care and attention' refer to the exact same offence under s.52 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0052.html

    Also, people regularly get prosecuted for careless driving, even where no accident has taken place. Although it is more likely for someone to come to the attention of the Gardai when an accident occurs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 51,885 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    MagicSean wrote: »
    In excess of 120kph

    "121, 122, 124 kph or have you an exact number Garda?"
    Can't really see that sticking tbh.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,160 ✭✭✭TheNog



    "121, 122, 124 kph or have you an exact number Garda?"
    Can't really see that sticking tbh.

    Does not have to be an exact speed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 51,885 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    TheNog wrote: »
    I'm on a mobile so can't split your post above for my answer.

    Observing a persons driving through a rearview mirror is definitely more difficult but it can be done.

    Careless driving and dangerous driving would mainly used for traffic accidents. Remember dangerous driving includes speed so if the Garda gives evidence that the OP was driving in excess of the speed limit and he gives an estimation say between 140-160kph, the OP could be convicted and disqualified.

    If anything happens I would say it will a speeding fine or summons for dangerous driving if Garda believes OP was doing those speeds.

    Yes but that's back to my earlier point. Does a speeding charge not have to point to an exact number? Also would the term "Dangerous Driving" not have to be mentioned to the OP at the time as it appears "Driving without due Care" was the only thing he was told.? I always thought there was a standard caution in these matters. Maybe i'm wrong.
    By the way I am anti speeding and driving dangerously and on the Garda side but I just cannot understand this one. I can't see him being convicted.


  • Registered Users Posts: 51,885 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    TheNog wrote: »
    Does not have to be an exact speed.

    O.K. I didn't know that. Thanks for replies to all.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Exceeding the speed limit is the charge.


Advertisement