Richard Boyd Barrett spared conviction despite admitting second speeding offence

expectationlost

don't understand how he avoided getting penalty points?

Sully

expectationlost wrote: »

don't understand how he avoided getting penalty points?

He didn't receive a fixed penalty notice because the address he gave the Guard was out of date. As a result, it was thrown out by the judge. Common enough.

hatrickpatrick

Sully wrote: »

Did she or did she not drive with alcohol on her, even if she was under the limit?

So what if she did? If she wasn't over the limit, she wasn't over the limit.

Sully

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So what if she did? If she wasn't over the limit, she wasn't over the limit.

As we are regularly told, 'Never ever drink & drive'. It doesn't say 'Never ever drink & drive over the limit'.

Just because she didn't break the law and was under the limit, doesn't mean it was right to drink & drive in the first place. Its commonly suggested that one drink can impair someones driving.

But, its her own personal choice and the point I was making was that the Guards suspected she had alcohol taken, she failed to give an adequate sample on site for whatever reason and was brought back to the station for a nurse/doctor to attend and take a urine sample. She wasn't 'stitched up' - their suspicions were proven and the guards were correct in their actions up until the point they released the news to the media in what can only be described as their way of screwing her to the wall which cannot be condoned.

RATM

Sully wrote: »

As we are regularly told, 'Never ever drink & drive'. It doesn't say 'Never ever drink & drive over the limit'.

Just because she didn't break the law and was under the limit, doesn't mean it was right to drink & drive in the first place. Its commonly suggested that one drink can impair someones driving.

But, its her own personal choice and the point I was making was that the Guards suspected she had alcohol taken, she failed to give an adequate sample on site for whatever reason and was brought back to the station for a nurse/doctor to attend and take a urine sample. She wasn't 'stitched up' - their suspicions were proven and the guards were correct in their actions up until the point they released the news to the media in what can only be described as their way of screwing her to the wall which cannot be condoned.

Is it not the case though that the roadside test isn't actually the offical test that you would get convicted of drink driving on ? It's my understanding that the roadside test is to determine if you might be in or around or over the limit and it informs the Gardai decision on what to do next. But it is the test back at the station which is more accurate and is the one that is used in evidence to actually convict you. That's just my understanding of it, I might be wrong or things could have changed. But if they haven't then AFAIK regardless of the results of the roadside test the Gardai have to conduct another test in the station as the equipment based there is more accurate.

Also does a nurse/doctor have to be called out to give a urine sample ? Or is it only for blood alone ?

expectationlost

Sully wrote: »

He didn't receive a fixed penalty notice because the address he gave the Guard was out of date. As a result, it was thrown out by the judge. Common enough.

so why he get a fine?

coldcake

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm finding it odd that small-party and independent TDs are having all the trouble with the law. So far we have had Mick Wallace, Clare Daly, Ming and now Boyd-Barrett.

We have no TDs at all from the main parties being hauled up by the police or courts in this way.

Are the small-party TDs less law abiding than the big party ones, or could there be something else going on?

Deputy Robert Troy

http://www.midlandsradio.fm/news/13penaltypoints-local-vcr-cw

Cody Pomeray

Sully wrote: »

She wasn't 'stitched up' - their suspicions were proven

You arrest an individual on suspicion of being over the defined alcohol limit - not on suspicion of having consumed any alcohol at all.

Their suspicions were not proven.

Sully

RATM wrote: »

Is it not the case though that the roadside test isn't actually the offical test that you would get convicted of drink driving on ? It's my understanding that the roadside test is to determine if you might be in or around or over the limit and it informs the Gardai decision on what to do next. But it is the test back at the station which is more accurate and is the one that is used in evidence to actually convict you. That's just my understanding of it, I might be wrong or things could have changed. But if they haven't then AFAIK regardless of the results of the roadside test the Gardai have to conduct another test in the station as the equipment based there is more accurate.

Also does a nurse/doctor have to be called out to give a urine sample ? Or is it only for blood alone ?

I believe the roadside test isn't that far off the mark and a very good indicator. But yeah, your bang on. You get brought back to blow into another machine usually, I think, or if you can't than its urine or blood are the next options IIRC.

Not sure if nurse/doctor has to attend for a urine sample. Probably not, but its not a big deal tbh as she was able to give some sort of proper sample for them to test back at the station seeing as she couldn't on the street.

expectationlost wrote: »

so why he get a fine?

He didn't.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

You arrest an individual on suspicion of being over the defined alcohol limit - not on suspicion of having consumed any alcohol at all.

Their suspicions were not proven.

Their suspicion she had alcohol was proven. Not that she was over the limit, you are correct.

expectationlost

Judge Leonard then proceeded to make her order and said: “€100 fine, three months to pay, one day in default of payment”.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/td-spared-conviction-despite-admitting-second-speeding-offence-593779.html

Sully

expectationlost wrote: »

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/td-spared-conviction-despite-admitting-second-speeding-offence-593779.html

That was before he explained he never got the notice. You need to re-read the article in full as just after your quote..

The outspoken politician, who represented himself, then told Judge Leonard: “I am fully accepting responsibility” but then added: “I did not get the original fixed penalty notice”.

As the opening line in the article says;

People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett was spared a conviction, fine and penalty points today despite admitting a speeding offence and giving a garda an out-of-date address.

and finishes up..

“In those circumstances, I will strike it out,” Judge Leonard said as she decided to change her order and throw out the case.

hatrickpatrick

Sully wrote: »

As we are regularly told, 'Never ever drink & drive'. It doesn't say 'Never ever drink & drive over the limit'.

Just because she didn't break the law and was under the limit, doesn't mean it was right to drink & drive in the first place. Its commonly suggested that one drink can impair someones driving.

It's not a good idea, but it's not illegal and not something to judge somebody for. If you're not over the limit you're not doing anything wrong; if you think otherwise then the limit should be lowered. As it stands, she did absolutely nothing wrong.

hatrickpatrick

Sully wrote: »

Their suspicion she had alcohol was proven. Not that she was over the limit, you are correct.

Then she did nothing wrong. The Gardai can't punish you for something that isn't against the law even if people's personal opinion doesn't like you doing it.

mikehammer67

Sully wrote: »

As we are regularly told, 'Never ever drink & drive'. It doesn't say 'Never ever drink & drive over the limit'.

Just because she didn't break the law and was under the limit, doesn't mean it was right to drink & drive in the first place. Its commonly suggested that one drink can impair someones driving.

But, its her own personal choice and the point I was making was that the Guards suspected she had alcohol taken, she failed to give an adequate sample on site for whatever reason and was brought back to the station for a nurse/doctor to attend and take a urine sample. She wasn't 'stitched up' - their suspicions were proven and the guards were correct in their actions up until the point they released the news to the media in what can only be described as their way of screwing her to the wall which cannot be condoned.

dunno about all that

i thought the never never drink thing was designed to simplify the issue
as the limit is so low

dunno if it means it's wrong to have a glass of beer

bmaxi

Sully wrote: »

But, its her own personal choice and the point I was making was that the Guards suspected she had alcohol taken, she failed to give an adequate sample on site for whatever reason and was brought back to the station for a nurse/doctor to attend and take a urine sample. She wasn't 'stitched up' - their suspicions were proven and the guards were correct in their actions up until the point they released the news to the media in what can only be described as their way of screwing her to the wall which cannot be condoned.

Did she not say she had taken a hot whiskey because she had a flu or cold?
Maybe she wasn't capable of sustaining the breath for long enough. I've been breathalysed and they do ask you to blow for quite a long time, I found it difficult and I neither smoke nor drink.
I think you're clutching at straws in your attempts to justify this.

Cody Pomeray

Sully wrote: »

Their suspicion she had alcohol was proven. Not that she was over the limit, you are correct.

Their suspicion that she had any alcohol taken below the legal limit is utterly irrelevant.

Gardaí can suspect lots of inadvisable, immoral or unwise behaviours. It's their job to keep it to themselves; all that matters when they are at work is a suspicion of an offence having been committed.

In this case, Gardaí clearly suspected an offence had been committed relating to drink driving.
The Gardaí were wrong in that suspicion.

newsunglasses

He gets his conviction overturned because he gave an out of date address,is that not being evasive?

I never liked that richie boyd barret,i dont believe he even believes what he says,that and that pink shirt ''independant'' tax evader,who raided public funds..


They should be thrown out of the dail on their ear,nothing irritates me more than seeing them two..

zimmermania

Sully wrote: »

He didn't receive a fixed penalty notice because the address he gave the Guard was out of date. As a result, it was thrown out by the judge. Common enough.

How can an address be out of date? did he give a wrong address? One would imagine that a td would have mail re-directed if he moved house as it is certain they would receive a lot of mail.Sounds a bit fishy to me.

Sully

zimmermania wrote: »

How can an address be out of date? did he give a wrong address? One would imagine that a td would have mail re-directed if he moved house as it is certain they would receive a lot of mail.Sounds a bit fishy to me.

He moved.

HeidiHeidi

What I don't get is..... if the fine notice didn't get to him (as he'd inadvertently given a previous address - highly suspect IMO, but how and ever) then how did the summons get delivered?

20Cent

Pretty disturbing development on last nights Prime Time. Interview with Alan Shatter and Mick Wallace. Shatter using garda intelligence to smear a rival. This would be a resigning matter in the UK. On a point of interest I can't stand Wallace either he should be long gone.

Alan Shatter: “As Deputy Wallace knows, even without…in issuing tickets, the Gardaí exercised discretion. Deputy Wallace himself was stopped with a mobile, on a mobile phone last May, by members of An Garda Síochána and he was advised by the guard who stopped him that a fixed ticket charge could issue and you would be, he could be given penalty points. But the garda apparently, as I’m advised…”

Pat Kenny: “Used his discretion.”

Shatter: “Used his discretion and warned him and told him not to do it again.”

Pat Kenny: “Mick? Mick? The guard used his discretion?”

Wallace: “I tell you what, first of all that’s news to me. Secondly, right, with regard to discretion…”

Kenny: “You don’t recall that incident?”

Wallace: “I don’t know. Listen with regard to discretion. It’s all very well to say they’re using discretions here and there but in actual fact, once the, the rule is once it goes on the system, they should go to court to deal with it. Now listen..”

Kenny: “By the way, are you not concerned that the minister should know about your private business dealing with the Gardaí?”

Chucky the tree

Mick Wallaces case of amnesia is very worrying. He should visit a doctor and get that checked out.

JustinDee

That hypocritical performance was like watching a drunk arguing at a bar.

20Cent

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Mick Wallaces case of amnesia is very worrying. He should visit a doctor and get that checked out.

Or maybe it never happened.

Cody Pomeray

20Cent wrote: »

Pretty disturbing development on last nights Prime Time. Interview with Alan Shatter and Mick Wallace. Shatter using garda intelligence to smear a rival. This would be a resigning matter in the UK. On a point of interest I can't stand Wallace either he should be long gone.
...
Kenny: “By the way, are you not concerned that the minister should know about your private business dealing with the Gardaí?”

Completely agree with this.

I cannot believe that a Minister for Justice sees fit to disclose a TD's personal interactions with the Gardaí in the midst of a political debate.

you just cannot have a situation where a TD is going into a political debate with someone's Garda record up his sleeve.

There are serious questions to be answered in this case by a Garda who accessed Wallace's details and disclosed the information, and by the Minister who used it.

Cody Pomeray

Shatter has just released a statement this defending his disclosure of the record... doesnt seem to be online, but reported on radio. Contents predictable.

TINA1984

Shatters shenanigans deserve a thread of their own!

Surely there's a case of a breach of the data protection Act on his part somehow?