Rearrested for drink driving if case is thrown out?

EG147

Hey,

I am due in court for the third time regarding a drink driving offence. The guards had until the 6th to give the solicitor the statements which they have not done. He advised me that since this is the second time that the case will more than likely be thrown out. Then someone said to me that it is possible the they could rearrest me and start the process again. Is this possible in a drink driving case?

Thanks

Paulw

EG147 wrote: »

Hey,

I am due in court for the third time regarding a drink driving offence. The guards had until the 6th to give the solicitor the statements which they have not done. He advised me that since this is the second time that the case will more than likely be thrown out. Then someone said to me that it is possible the they could rearrest me and start the process again. Is this possible in a drink driving case?

What has your solicitor said? :rolleyes: I would believe the solicitor more than "someone".

EG147

Paulw wrote: »

What has your solicitor said? :rolleyes: I would believe the solicitor more than "someone".

I won't see my solicitor again until i meet him in court and im just curious. Thanks for the reply

Peregrinus

If the case is dismissed, the trial is over and you're acquitted. You cannot be tried a second time for the same offence.

EG147

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the case is dismissed, the trial is over and you're acquitted. You cannot be tried a second time for the same offence.

This might be a stupid question but if the case being thrown out and being dismissed the same this?

Peregrinus

EG147 wrote: »

This might be a stupid question but if the case being thrown out and being dismissed the same this?

Yes. And it's not a stupid question at all.

EG147

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. And it's not a stupid question at all.

Thanks a mil, thats great news!

schemingbohemia

It's not really great news, it means someone who failed a breath or urine test is getting away with being a drink driver because the garda failed to do their job properly.

I certainly don't feel safer on the streets.

EG147

schemingbohemia wrote: »

It's not really great news, it means someone who failed a breath or urine test is getting away with being a drink driver because the garda failed to do their job properly.

I certainly don't feel safer on the streets.

It was 10.30 in the morning and i was barely over the limit from the night before. A taxi who had been working since the night before ran a red light and crashed into me. So get off your high horse!

HellFireClub

EG147 wrote: »

It was 10.30 in the morning and i was barely over the limit from the night before. A taxi who had been working since the night before ran a red light and crashed into me. So get off your high horse!

Do Gardai automatically carry out breath tests now when there is an incident such as this?

EG147

HellFireClub wrote: »

Do Gardai automatically carry out breath tests now when there is an incident such as this?

Yeah its mandatory now.

schemingbohemia

Ah yes barely over the limit well sure those limits are only for gob****es anyway, how many other mornings have you been driving over the limit and not been caught?

Bloodwing

EG147 wrote: »

Hey,

I am due in court for the third time regarding a drink driving offence. The guards had until the 6th to give the solicitor the statements which they have not done. He advised me that since this is the second time that the case will more than likely be thrown out. Then someone said to me that it is possible the they could rearrest me and start the process again. Is this possible in a drink driving case?

Thanks

The case can be struck out with leave to re-enter but the guard will have some explaining to do. You won't be arrested again the guard can reapply for the summons. Was the case made preemptre (why can't I spell that word) against the state on the last date?

MagicSean

EG147 wrote: »

Yeah its mandatory now.

Not for material damage accidents

MagicSean

EG147 wrote: »

It was 10.30 in the morning and i was barely over the limit from the night before. A taxi who had been working since the night before ran a red light and crashed into me. So get off your high horse!

Why do you think the time matters?

jblack

Peregrinus wrote: »

If the case is dismissed, the trial is over and you're acquitted. You cannot be tried a second time for the same offence.

The case can be struck out for failing to make disclosure but you are not off the hook at all as you may be rearrested.

In such instance you are not acquitted.

Pat Mustard

jblack wrote: »

The case can be struck out for failing to make disclosure but you are not off the hook at all as you may be rearrested.

In such instance you are not acquitted.

Let us assume that the case not dismissed on the next occasion in court, but rather the summons is struck out. In that case, the Gardai can apply for a new summons to bring the OP before the court.

The Gardai already have all of the evidence that they are going to get in this case.

For what reason would they bother to arrest him again in relation to this same offence?

jblack

The Mustard wrote: »

Let us assume that the case not dismissed on the next occasion in court, but rather the summons is struck out. In that case, the Gardai can apply for a new summons to bring the OP before the court.

The Gardai already have all of the evidence that they are going to get in this case.

For what reason would they bother to arrest him again in relation to this same offence?

I agree, they should just do it right the first time. However, in practice, this happens quite a lot.

Pat Mustard

jblack wrote: »

I agree, they should just do it right the first time. However, in practice, this happens quite a lot.

In relation to drink driving, I would suggest that the Gardai would simply apply for a fresh summons and serve it, because they already have their evidence.

I don't think that they'd arrest the OP again in relation to the same drink driving incident though. It would be a waste of their time and his.

Reloc8

jblack wrote: »

The case can be struck out for failing to make disclosure but you are not off the hook at all as you may be rearrested.

In such instance you are not acquitted.

No, he can't be re-arrested for this offence. An arrest for a drink driving can take place only where the garda forms the opinion that the suspect has consumed alcohol to such an extent that he or she is incapable of having proper control of an MPV.

The Mustard wrote: »

Let us assume that the case not dismissed on the next occasion in court, but rather the summons is struck out. In that case, the Gardai can apply for a new summons to bring the OP before the court.

The Gardai already have all of the evidence that they are going to get in this case.

For what reason would they bother to arrest him again in relation to this same offence?

This is correct and moreover, they can't re-arrest. What they can do is, presuming there was an arrest and then a charge brought within 6 months of the date of the offence, and that charge was 'struck out' (I'll come back to this) apply for a summons, based on the evidence of arrest charge and caution given to the District Court within 6 months of the offence. This constitutes 'a complaint' made within time for the purposes of the petty sessions act.

Again, if a summons is 'struck out' for some reason (e.g. non appearance by the prosecuting member), ordinarily, it can be re-issued, grounded on the original complaint - which might be the evidence of arrest charge and caution given in District Court, or might be the application for a summons made within six months pursuant to the Courts (No. 1) Act 1986.

jblack wrote: »

I agree, they should just do it right the first time. However, in practice, this happens quite a lot.

Well, actually, a re-arrest for drink driving does not in fact happen a lot, because it would be illegal.

Turning to the substantive issue, the question is what order the District Judge has made in the case. A District Judge has jurisdiction to make one of three orders in a criminal case when determining criminal liability. Those are :-

1. Convict (and proceed to sentence, making further orders within jurisdiction as provided for)

2. Dismiss without prejudice (often stated orally as 'strike out').

3. Dismiss on the merits (whether having heard evidence, or for want of prosecution).

Only the third order constitutes a 'plea in bar' or effectively autrefois acquit of benefit to the defendant. The first of course does also constitute a plea in bar by way of autrefois convict but this is of anecdotal interest to law geeks only.

Source (as regards the form of orders which can be made by a DC judge) :-

O'Connor's Justices of the Peace (1915 2nd ed) and a statutory provision which I can't recall off the top of my head but which I will find tomorrow morning.

So, in a nutshell, if the DC Judge in the OP's case 'struck out' the case, the likelihood is that the Order made by him amounted to a dismiss without prejudice and there is accordingly no procedural bar on the case being re-entered on a re-issued summons.

He can't be re-arrested, and anyone who said he could is simply wrong.

That said, in the practical sense, a case which has been struck out multiple times will be fairly jaundiced in the eyes of a court on its subsequent re-entry and there is a real possibility that if it is re-entered a District Court Judge might dismiss for want of prosecution, which is a dismiss on the merits, and precludes further prosecution.

Of course, the OP's solicitor can and should explain all that to him pending which this is to be taken as internet waffle.

(edit : the above description of jurisdiction as regards the three orders which can be made explains why the Probation of Offenders Act (Dublin) 1907 is specifically excluded from being applied to e.g. drink drivings - because an order under s. 1(1) amounts to a dismiss on the merits - by way of finding the facts proven without proceeding to conviction and then dismissing pursuant to that section. Before anyone raises 'the Probation Act'. And stuff).

jblack

Rearrested was written in error, but not an excuse for an inaccurate post.

Medicine taken.

Reloc8

^ didn't mean to sound like a bollix in my post but perhaps I did and apologies for that.

jblack

Reloc8 wrote: »

^ didn't mean to sound like a bollix in my post but perhaps I did and apologies if so.

No need, I didn't read as such but rather a correction of my post backed up with a sourced statement of the law. I found it to be a helpful reminder, so thank you.

Zambia

EG147 wrote: »

It was 10.30 in the morning and i was barely over the limit from the night before. A taxi who had been working since the night before ran a red light and crashed into me. So get off your high horse!

I don't see much remorse here. You knew your intake the previous night and if you where still over .5 at 10.30 in the morning you had more than a night cap. Fact is you took to the road in that state. It appears to will slide on this occasion but please don't let the lesson escape you.

Reloc8

Zambia wrote: »

I don't see much remorse here. You knew your intake the previous night and if you where still over .5 at 10.30 in the morning you had more than a night cap. Fact is you took to the road in that state. It appears to will slide on this occasion but please don't let the lesson escape you.

It's the legal forum.

They don't have to feel sorry.

They just have to pay the fees.



disclaimer no one here ever pays any fees the ****ers

finbarrk

The high horse brigade was bound to make an apperance.

Reloc8

finbarrk wrote: »

The high horse brigade was bound to make an apperance.

Drunk drivers keep crashing into their horses.

Our man in Havana

Unless the Garda is on the ball, it is highly unlikely he would be able to re-enter within 6 months of the alleged offence.

Reloc8

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Unless the Garda is on the ball, it is highly unlikely he would be able to re-enter within 6 months of the alleged offence.

He or she doesn't have to.

Once the prosecution is initiated within 6 months (by application for summons or evidence of arrest charge and caution) if it is subsequently 'struck out' (i.e. dismissed without prejudice) it can be re-entered outside of the 6 months.

Zambia

Reloc8 wrote: »

It's the legal forum.

They don't have to feel sorry.

They just have to pay the fees.



disclaimer no one here ever pays any fees the ****ers

Legal fees can far outstrip the judges penalty in many cases

Reloc8

Zambia wrote: »

Legal fees can far outstrip the judges penalty in many cases

But...my way a lawyer earns money out of it...I don't understand...

Zambia wrote: »

Legal fees can far outstrip the judges penalty in many cases

Just for the craic by the way (my posts in this thread speak for themselves and are not unsympathetic to what you expressed in yours) what do you think the cost of defending a drink driving charge (presuming solicitor and barrister) in fact are ?

Zambia

Reloc8 wrote: »

Just for the craic by the way (my posts in this thread speak for themselves and are not unsympathetic to what you expressed in yours) what do you think the cost of defending a drink driving charge (presuming solicitor and barrister) in fact are ?

I could not say in Ireland but here I have seen fees in the region of 6000 when the fine was 900. However as we all know its the licence loss that really costs.

lkionm

What if the Gaurd just couldnt be arsed doing the final bit of paperwork and let OP off as it was 10.30 in the morning and not his fault.

It does seem a bit harsh though but thats the law I suppose.

OP must have been on the sauce all night to still be over the limit anyway.

If he stopped drinking at 1.30 and left the pub, its harsh.
If he stopped drinking at 4/5/6 and slept for a bit, its his own fault.

Morale of the story, TAXI DRIVERS!!!

Reloc8

Zambia wrote: »

I could not say in Ireland but here I have seen fees in the region of 6000 when the fine was 900. However as we all know its the licence loss that really costs.

But...how could you say in relation to an Irish case (which this blatantly is) if you can't say in relation to Ireland...

egan2020

The summons must be issued by the courts within six months of the offence so if they have time to issue a fresh summons they might do so.

This happened to someone I know. The guard entered the summons for the wrong district court area and the case was struck out. In his case, he was in court first time round about two weeks after the offence so the guards issued another summons for the correct courthouse within a couple of weeks. He was served with this summons and the case went ahead.

Pat Mustard

egan2020 wrote: »

The summons must be issued by the courts within six months of the offence so if they have time to issue a fresh summons they might do so.

This happened to someone I know. The guard entered the summons for the wrong district court area and the case was struck out. In his case, he was in court first time round about two weeks after the offence so the guards issued another summons for the correct courthouse within a couple of weeks. He was served with this summons and the case went ahead.

You are confusing the making of the complaint with the issuing of the summons.

The Garda must make the complaint to the District Court within 6 months of the commission of the offence. That is the important time limit in relation to minor offences.

MagicSean

lkionm wrote: »

What if the Gaurd just couldnt be arsed doing the final bit of paperwork and let OP off as it was 10.30 in the morning and not his fault.

It does seem a bit harsh though but thats the law I suppose.

OP must have been on the sauce all night to still be over the limit anyway.

If he stopped drinking at 1.30 and left the pub, its harsh.
If he stopped drinking at 4/5/6 and slept for a bit, its his own fault.

Morale of the story, TAXI DRIVERS!!!

Why does it make a difference how he got himself over the limit? You're driving is affected depending on how much alcohol is in your blood not on when you stopped drinking.

lkionm

MagicSean wrote: »

Why does it make a difference how he got himself over the limit? You're driving is affected depending on how much alcohol is in your blood not on when you stopped drinking.

Obviously.

But how often have you/will you have a few scoops and then go to work at 9 even?

Or pop down to tesco because your hungover.

I'm not condoning drink driving. Fair enough, I wasnt very clear.

Its just funny how often it could have happened and we would never had known because we 'felt' sober.

Usually I would leave my car at my friends for a night out and being a young whipper snapper I would drink all the beers and think nothing of it in the morning waiting for KFC to open at 11.30 cursing my hangover.

Over the limit is over the limit anyway you look at it.

MagicSean

lkionm wrote: »

Obviously.

But how often have you/will you have a few scoops and then go to work at 9 even?

Or pop down to tesco because your hungover.

I'm not condoning drink driving. Fair enough, I wasnt very clear.

Its just funny how often it could have happened and we would never had known because we 'felt' sober.

Usually I would leave my car at my friends for a night out and being a young whipper snapper I would drink all the beers and think nothing of it in the morning waiting for KFC to open at 11.30 cursing my hangover.

Over the limit is over the limit anyway you look at it.

Never done any of those things.

lkionm

MagicSean wrote: »

Never done any of those things.

Never went out for a night and left your car at a friends and stayed there and drove home in the morning?

Never went out and came home drunk and woke up in the morning to find no rashers to cure the hangover so had to drive to tesco?

Well I suppose if you dont drink or have a car then obviously you havent, but if that is the case that horse is awfully high.

Bloodwing

lkionm wrote: »

Never went out for a night and left your car at a friends and stayed there and drove home in the morning?

Never went out and came home drunk and woke up in the morning to find no rashers to cure the hangover so had to drive to tesco?

Well I suppose if you dont drink or have a car then obviously you havent, but if that is the case that horse is awfully high.

Please don't accuse someone of being on a high horse just because they make the effort not to drink and drive, it makes your posts sound immature and childish. Drink driving is never excusable, regardless of the circumstances.

Zambia

Reloc8 wrote: »

But...how could you say in relation to an Irish case (which this blatantly is) if you can't say in relation to Ireland...

So what is the average cost of defending a full hearing ex pca in Ireland? Compared to the fine.

Is it free?

MagicSean

lkionm wrote: »

Never went out for a night and left your car at a friends and stayed there and drove home in the morning?

Never went out and came home drunk and woke up in the morning to find no rashers to cure the hangover so had to drive to tesco?

Well I suppose if you dont drink or have a car then obviously you havent, but if that is the case that horse is awfully high.

Are you actually accusing me of being on a high horse for not driving drunk?

angrykoala

so what happened with the case???

EG147

angrykoala wrote: »

so what happened with the case???

The guards had the wrong summons on the 4th day in court. They had a summons for a drug offence instead of an alcohol offence. So the summons was thrown out therefore so was the case. And now since it was over 6 months from the date of the incident the judge said they would find it very hard to get a new summons issued. So the guard said she was not going to bother. So thats it. The claim for the taxi that crashed into me still goes on my insurance because i was over the limit at the time of the accident and i lose my no claims bonus but i don't have a conviction on my licence.

Pat Mustard

EG147 wrote: »

The guards had the wrong summons on the 4th day in court. They had a summons for a drug offence instead of an alcohol offence.

It seems from your OP that you were already before the court three times in relation to a drink driving offence (presumably by way of charge sheet) and that you were waiting on statements from the guards, which had not been supplied, ultimately.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the case would have been struck out or dismissed on the basis of statements not being furnished, no?

EG147 wrote: »

The claim for the taxi that crashed into me still goes on my insurance because i was over the limit at the time of the accident and i lose my no claims bonus but i don't have a conviction on my licence.

From what you write, no court has found you guilty of any drink driving offence. You say that the taxi ran a red light and crashed into your car. Was there any damage to your car, and if so, have you been compensated for that?

EG147

The Mustard wrote: »

It seems from your OP that you were already before the court three times in relation to a drink driving offence (presumably by way of charge sheet) and that you were waiting on statements from the guards, which had not been supplied, ultimately.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that the case would have been struck out or dismissed on the basis of statements not being furnished, no?



From what you write, no court has found you guilty of any drink driving offence. You say that the taxi ran a red light and crashed into your car. Was there any damage to your car, and if so, have you been compensated for that?

Yes i was initially waiting for the statements but they we handed over on the 3rd day. So the 4th was gonna be the last day. Then the judge realised it was the wrong summons and threw it out. No i wasn't convicted of drink driving but in the T&C's of my insurance if i am over the limit at the time of an accident then i accept full liability. And now he is also putting in for a personal injury claim which is still in progress and is stopping me from driving anyway as i cant get insurance until it is settled.

Marcusm

EG147 wrote: »

Yes i was initially waiting for the statements but they we handed over on the 3rd day. So the 4th was gonna be the last day. Then the judge realised it was the wrong summons and threw it out. No i wasn't convicted of drink driving but in the T&C's of my insurance if i am over the limit at the time of an accident then i accept full liability. And now he is also putting in for a personal injury claim which is still in progress and is stopping me from driving anyway as i cant get insurance until it is settled.

That sort of clause would generally indicate that you accept an obligation to reimburse the insurance company for any costs they have to pay out not that you must accept liability for any damage. I.e. the insurance company Ts&Cs cannot impose a legal liability on you for the accident if it's the other person's responsibility. You need to get a solicitor on to this point very quickly.