Drink driving - grace period?

malene

Out of curiosity, after a conviction for drink driving, how long before the ban comes in?

Thanks.

DuckSlice

Not soon enough in my opinion.

Pro Hoc Vice

malene wrote: »

Out of curiosity, after a conviction for drink driving, how long before the ban comes in?

Thanks.

After conviction in the DC on the 15 day after unless a postponement of upto 6 months has been requested. If postponement granted which ever day it is given to. Any appeal made in time acts as a stay on any disqualification, after appeal the ban becomes operative straight away after appeal again unless postponement granted by the court for upto 6 months.

ABajaninCork

Why should there be a grace period? I don't understand...

Pro Hoc Vice

ABajaninCork wrote: »

Why should there be a grace period? I don't understand...

One reason maybe to allow a person to make arrangements re work or children. It's not automatic the judge has to agree that the reasons is valid and good enough to postpone sentence.

malene

etxp wrote: »

Not soon enough in my opinion.

I agree. I bring it up as someone I know got banned, but is still drinking AND driving after a long term ban was imposed. The mind boggles.

ABajaninCork

infosys wrote: »

One reason maybe to allow a person to make arrangements re work or children. It's not automatic the judge has to agree that the reasons is valid and good enough to postpone sentence.

It might well be. But the person should've made these arrangements BEFORE court! It's not as though the prospect of a ban didn't arise...

I think appealing a DD ban is the height of chutzpah IMO. You did the crime, now take your punishment.

MarkR

Have you reported them?

malene

MarkR wrote: »

Have you reported them?

I might.

Pro Hoc Vice

ABajaninCork wrote: »

It might well be. But the person should've made these arrangements BEFORE court! It's not as though the prospect of a ban didn't arise...

I think appealing a DD ban is the height of chutzpah IMO. You did the crime, now take your punishment.

A person is innocent until proven guilty, also a person has a right to an appeal, a number of DC convictions are over turned on appeal.

ABajaninCork

infosys wrote: »

A person is innocent until proven guilty, also a person has a right to an appeal, a number of DC convictions are over turned on appeal.

I understand that. But if the breathlyser/blood test shows you were over the limit, then AFAIC then there's absolutely NO grounds for appeal! Bang to rights...

I have a real bee in my bonnet about DD's. They're selfish and ignorant IMHO.

Max Power1

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I understand that. But if the breathlyser/blood test shows you were over the limit, then AFAIC then there's absolutely NO grounds for appeal! Bang to rights...

I have a real bee in my bonnet about DD's. They're selfish and ignorant IMHO.

+1
Also all of this crap about drink drivers grace period and suspending the ban etc.

Just dont do it, end of. DD are one of the worst scourges on the motoring populous along with the uninsured. Should be a lifetime ban for any DD, especially if its not the first time.

Pro Hoc Vice

ABajaninCork wrote: »

I understand that. But if the breathlyser/blood test shows you were over the limit, then AFAIC then there's absolutely NO grounds for appeal! Bang to rights...

I have a real bee in my bonnet about DD's. They're selfish and ignorant IMHO.

There may be an issue with the sample, it may not have been taken legally. There may be a incorrect proof, it maybe a charge of being in charge with intention to drive, which may have evidence to rebut the intention to drive.

A person is entitled to the presumption no matter how strong you or I think the evidence is. I also have issues with people who drink/take drugs including prescription drugs and drive, but I have a bigger issue with everyone's right to a fair trial which includes an appeal process.

Its funny I know loads of people with serious issues about drink driving yet will happily take prescription medication and drive. Its funny the amount of people who will drive after taking Codeine or benzodiazepine.

ABajaninCork

malene wrote: »

I might.

You MUST!!! It's your civic duty.

Pro Hoc Vice

malene wrote: »

I agree. I bring it up as someone I know got banned, but is still drinking AND driving after a long term ban was imposed. The mind boggles.

Not only do they risk a further long ban, they are at serious risk of imprisonment.

Ilik Urgee

malene wrote: »

I might.

Any final requests?:D

FWIW I would, but that's your own decision.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

malene

do the guards have the details of case on file in the station, whether appeal was lodged. According to the paper there was a long ban and it'sa 2nd conviction. Would a judge allow an appeal on a second conviction?

Pro Hoc Vice

malene wrote: »

do the guards have the details of case on file in the station, whether appeal was lodged. According to the paper there was a long ban and it'sa 2nd conviction. Would a judge allow an appeal on a second conviction?

Its not up to a DJ to allow it its an automatic right to appeal, AGS are informed of the fact that the matter is appealed as they must be served the appeal papers. Depending on the Circuit an appeal can be a few months or a year or so.

whomitconcerns

infosys wrote: »

There may be an issue with the sample, it may not have been taken legally. There may be a incorrect proof, ....

Not taken legally....so you would advocate people getting off on a technicality so they could continue D&D???????????

Pro Hoc Vice

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Not taken legally....so you would advocate people getting off on a technicality so they could continue D&D???????????

Its not a technicality its a person been accused of a crime where there is unlawfull detention or where a sample is taken after the allowed time or taken where there may not be a right to take it.

Are you advocating that a person does not have constitutional rights if accused of drink driving. Is there certain crimes where a person does not have rights once accused of the crime.

Wheres My ForkandKnife

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Not taken legally....so you would advocate people getting off on a technicality so they could continue D&D???????????

Infosys has stated what the law is and someone tries to twist this into a suggestion that they advocate drink driving:eek:. Sure why let little technicalities such as the judical system, the laws of the land or due process get in the way of guilt.

All these courts and the gardai are costing us too much money anyway. We could just have lynch mobs set up to deal out summary justice. I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to do the job for free.

biko

malene wrote: »

I might.

What's stopping you?

doolox

Unless we get a complete sea change in our social set-up drink driving will never be eliminated.

No car parks in pubs. Why should huge car parks be allowed in pubs??? This is only legitimising drink driving because now even one pint can put you over the limit.

Smaller pubs in built-up areas. Many urban areas have sprawling housing estates and the nearest pub may be 3 or more miles away. Planners should have gone for smaller pubs closer to each community and not the big "super-pubs" which rely on motor transport for their viability in order to support a large building and large staff.

Cheaper and more easily available taxis, minibusses and public transport, maybe even by building in the cost of subsidies to enable this to happen into the price of everyones drink.

Better planning of functions, parties etc. Someone should be made responsible for planning and supervising transport home or overnight accommodation for people going to these functions. It might even be possible to make it legally obligatory to report such functions to the local Gardai so that they are aware of their plans and make sure to tell people that you are doing so.

Not allowing existing publicans to object to new licenses within 3 miles of them. The current practice encourages big pubs with long distances between them in built up areas and it would be better to have larger numbers of small one room local pubs at closer distances to peoples homes to encourage them to walk. An alternative to this would be to encourage pubs to set up near LUAS and DART and bus stops and run these services later to encourage their use, instead of private cars and......no big car parks with pubs.

Pro Hoc Vice

doolox wrote: »

Unless we get a complete sea change in our social set-up drink driving will never be eliminated.

No car parks in pubs. Why should huge car parks be allowed in pubs??? This is only legitimising drink driving because now even one pint can put you over the limit.

Smaller pubs in built-up areas. Many urban areas have sprawling housing estates and the nearest pub may be 3 or more miles away. Planners should have gone for smaller pubs closer to each community and not the big "super-pubs" which rely on motor transport for their viability in order to support a large building and large staff.

Cheaper and more easily available taxis, minibusses and public transport, maybe even by building in the cost of subsidies to enable this to happen into the price of everyones drink.

Better planning of functions, parties etc. Someone should be made responsible for planning and supervising transport home or overnight accommodation for people going to these functions. It might even be possible to make it legally obligatory to report such functions to the local Gardai so that they are aware of their plans and make sure to tell people that you are doing so.

Not allowing existing publicans to object to new licenses within 3 miles of them. The current practice encourages big pubs with long distances between them in built up areas and it would be better to have larger numbers of small one room local pubs at closer distances to peoples homes to encourage them to walk. An alternative to this would be to encourage pubs to set up near LUAS and DART and bus stops and run these services later to encourage their use, instead of private cars and......no big car parks with pubs.

Many larger pubs make more money from food than drink. Why should they not be allowed to have a car park. I know many people who drive to a pub with a designated driver, many of my friends alternate with the partner to drive. In reality not allowing parking in a pub is not going to stop drink driving.

Soarer

doolox wrote: »

.

No car parks in pubs. Why should huge car parks be allowed in pubs??? This is only legitimising drink driving because now even one pint can put you over the limit..

Utter bollox!

Wheres My ForkandKnife

doolox wrote: »

Unless we get a complete sea change in our social set-up drink driving will never be eliminated.

No car parks in pubs. Why should huge car parks be allowed in pubs??? This is only legitimising drink driving because now even one pint can put you over the limit.

Smaller pubs in built-up areas. Many urban areas have sprawling housing estates and the nearest pub may be 3 or more miles away. Planners should have gone for smaller pubs closer to each community and not the big "super-pubs" which rely on motor transport for their viability in order to support a large building and large staff.

Cheaper and more easily available taxis, minibusses and public transport, maybe even by building in the cost of subsidies to enable this to happen into the price of everyones drink.

Better planning of functions, parties etc. Someone should be made responsible for planning and supervising transport home or overnight accommodation for people going to these functions. It might even be possible to make it legally obligatory to report such functions to the local Gardai so that they are aware of their plans and make sure to tell people that you are doing so.

Not allowing existing publicans to object to new licenses within 3 miles of them. The current practice encourages big pubs with long distances between them in built up areas and it would be better to have larger numbers of small one room local pubs at closer distances to peoples homes to encourage them to walk. An alternative to this would be to encourage pubs to set up near LUAS and DART and bus stops and run these services later to encourage their use, instead of private cars and......no big car parks with pubs.

This is completely off topic but if anything proves that there is a drink issue in this country then the above post is it.

No car parks? I think ruoghly 20% of the population doesn't drink at all. Pubs do as much business in food these days.

Smaller pubs? Because we need more pubs in Ireland.

Subsidised taxis? If you can afford to drink....

Legal obligation to report a party? Don't even know where to start with this.

Maybe we should just outlaw personal responsibility altogether.


The OP's question was answered at the start of the thread.

Guy:Incognito

infosys wrote: »

There may be an issue with the sample, it may not have been taken legally. There may be a incorrect proof, it maybe a charge of being in charge with intention to drive, which may have evidence to rebut the intention to drive.
.

But surely this evidence would be used in the initial trial, rather than an appeal. So the person goes in to the first trial with a good indication of whether or not they will be banned. Surely it makes sense to have things arranged for the likeliehood of being banned?

This other **** of getting licences back early or delaying bans or suspending them because the driver needs his licence to work is another load of balls. If anything, someone who depends on their licence to earn should be much more cautious of loosing it in the first place.

Pro Hoc Vice

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

But surely this evidence would be used in the initial trial, rather than an appeal. So the person goes in to the first trial with a good indication of whether or not they will be banned. Surely it makes sense to have things arranged for the likeliehood of being banned?

This other **** of getting licences back early or delaying bans or suspending them because the driver needs his licence to work is another load of balls. If anything, someone who depends on their licence to earn should be much more cautious of loosing it in the first place.

A postponement can be to allow a person the few months to finish a university degree, or to contine to take a child to treatment or to allow job to rearrange things. Often the postponement is just a few days or weeks but in any case can not be longer than 6 months. In relation to appeals the DC may not accept a legal point and convict while the CC may very well do so.

A disqualification can only be ended early once at least 2 years of any ban is served, in reality it only applies to long disquifications of 3 years or more but one anomaly in the system is that a mid rang disqualification of 2 years is in reality equal to a 3 year disqualification, which I think is unfair.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

hfallada

doolox wrote: »

Unless we get a complete sea change in our social set-up drink driving will never be eliminated.

No car parks in pubs. Why should huge car parks be allowed in pubs??? This is only legitimising drink driving because now even one pint can put you over the limit.

Smaller pubs in built-up areas. Many urban areas have sprawling housing estates and the nearest pub may be 3 or more miles away. Planners should have gone for smaller pubs closer to each community and not the big "super-pubs" which rely on motor transport for their viability in order to support a large building and large staff.

Cheaper and more easily available taxis, minibusses and public transport, maybe even by building in the cost of subsidies to enable this to happen into the price of everyones drink.

Better planning of functions, parties etc. Someone should be made responsible for planning and supervising transport home or overnight accommodation for people going to these functions. It might even be possible to make it legally obligatory to report such functions to the local Gardai so that they are aware of their plans and make sure to tell people that you are doing so.

Not allowing existing publicans to object to new licenses within 3 miles of them. The current practice encourages big pubs with long distances between them in built up areas and it would be better to have larger numbers of small one room local pubs at closer distances to peoples homes to encourage them to walk. An alternative to this would be to encourage pubs to set up near LUAS and DART and bus stops and run these services later to encourage their use, instead of private cars and......no big car parks with pubs.

I take it you are obviously a big advocate of the nanny state? You think the government should control as much of our lives as possible. A pub is business and locate where it wants to locate. There is no point building pubs beside public transport, it finishes after 11.30pm. Meaning when you leave the pub, you will have no public transport to get anyway.

Drink driving isnt as common as it used to be at all. Im a twenty-something and I dont know anyone who would even consider drink driving, never mind actually do it. The fact rural pubs are closing because publicans are saying that drink driving laws are being enforced and people are afraid to do it, shows drink driving is declining and government people is working

whomitconcerns

infosys wrote: »

Its not a technicality its a person been accused of a crime where there is unlawfull detention or where a sample is taken after the allowed time or taken where there may not be a right to take it.

Are you advocating that a person does not have constitutional rights if accused of drink driving. Is there certain crimes where a person does not have rights once accused of the crime.

I am speaking here of drink driving.. you are speaking here of someone failing a breath.urine/blood test for alcohol, and then being allowed away with it because the test was taken too late, or some other technicality.

There is no elimination of presumption of innocence. When you fail the test you are guilty. If there is a technicality that means you get away with it, then you are legally not guilty but morally you are still guilty.

Pro Hoc Vice

whomitconcerns wrote: »

I am speaking here of drink driving.. you are speaking here of someone failing a breath.urine/blood test for alcohol, and then being allowed away with it because the test was taken too late, or some other technicality.

There is no elimination of presumption of innocence. When you fail the test you are guilty. If there is a technicality that means you get away with it, then you are legally not guilty but morally you are still guilty.

So again you do not believe in the presumption of innocence. Moral or legal it's still the presumption.

djimi

infosys wrote: »

So again you do not believe in the presumption of innocence. Moral or legal it's still the presumption.

While youre not wrong about what you say, its very hard to get on board with the idea of presuming that someone is innocent until found guilty when it comes to something like drink driving where there is the potential for a guilty party to put the safety of the general public at risk.

Im of the opinion in this case that if you fail a breath/blood test then you are taken off the road until you are either charged or acquitted. The idea that someone could fail a drink driving test and still be allowed back behind the wheel of a car while the matter is being sorted is quite scary tbh.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

djimi wrote: »

While youre not wrong about what you say, its very hard to get on board with the idea of presuming that someone is innocent until found guilty when it comes to something like drink driving where there is the potential for a guilty party to put the safety of the general public at risk.

Im of the opinion in this case that if you fail a breath/blood test then you are taken off the road until you are either charged or acquitted. The idea that someone could fail a drink driving test and still be allowed back behind the wheel of a car while the matter is being sorted is quite scary tbh.

There was a case a few years ago in Sweeden where thousands of convictions had to be thrown out because of a software fault in the machine. BTW that's the machine we now use in Ireland.

whomitconcerns

To be devils advocate in my own argument.

Yes I can understand your point infosys where you have a borderline case, ie the person is randomly breath tested and marginally over..

However on the other side, if a person is clearly over limit, I do not support their getting off on a technicality, ie if the person has a crash due to their state or is stopped for driving recklessly/carelessly.

Pro Hoc Vice

whomitconcerns wrote: »

To be devils advocate in my own argument.

Yes I can understand your point infosys where you have a borderline case, ie the person is randomly breath tested and marginally over..

However on the other side, if a person is clearly over limit, I do not support their getting off on a technicality, ie if the person has a crash due to their state or is stopped for driving recklessly/carelessly.

If they have a crash they will also be charged with dangerous driving same for careless driving. What people are advocating here is that in certain crimes we should drop fair procedure because we want to. I disagree with that a person has the right to fight their case and put the state on full proof. A person always takes a risk when fighting a case in that any reduction for an early plea will not be given if fought and convicted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are minimum mandatory the important word is minimum the court can give more than the minimum. I accept its rare as most judges usually give the minimum ban but it is possible to get far more than the minimum and it does happen.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Sam Russell

If the evidential breath test administered by AGS comes up positive, then the driving ban should commence from that moment. Clearly, AGS would not allow the driver to proceed at that time. Arrest and caution followed by summons, with no incentive to delay the prosecution, these would be dealt with within 7 days. A friend of mine was caught (many years ago) and had his day in court three days later.

Immediate justice is true justice.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sam Russell wrote: »

If the evidential breath test administered by AGS comes up positive, then the driving ban should commence from that moment. Clearly, AGS would not allow the driver to proceed at that time. Arrest and caution followed by summons, with no incentive to delay the prosecution, these would be dealt with within 7 days. A friend of mine was caught (many years ago) and had his day in court three days later.

Immediate justice is true justice.

Thankfully I don't live in the country you want, thankfully we still have that silly idea of innocent until proven guilty. A positive sample only proves that there was a sample that was positive. It does not prove driving, it does not prove a public place, it does not prove the person had execes alcohol in his system within 3 hours of driving. Only when all the evidence is presented to a judge and accepted beyond a reasonable doubt is there a conviction.

I heard of a guy arrested tested and left go he was caught later the same night and sample again. He got a serious ban for being so stupid.

Other than a very short ban a immediate ban without court would be a problem under the ECHR.

djimi

infosys wrote: »

Thankfully I don't live in the country you want, thankfully we still have that silly idea of innocent until proven guilty. A positive sample only proves that there was a sample that was positive. It does not prove driving, it does not prove a public place, it does not prove the person had execes alcohol in his system within 3 hours of driving. Only when all the evidence is presented to a judge and accepted beyond a reasonable doubt is there a conviction.

How often is someone breathalized when its not possible to prove that they were driving immediately, let alone within three hours of the sample being taken? If you are pulled over, breathalized and you fail then you are guilty until aquitted as far as Im concerned, and should not be let anywhere near the wheel of a car until it can be shown that you were not breaking the law and that you were not a danger to others. The alternative is to allow a potential drunk drive back loose on the roads.

Pro Hoc Vice

djimi wrote: »

How often is someone breathalized when its not possible to prove that they were driving immediately, let alone within three hours of the sample being taken? If you are pulled over, breathalized and you fail then you are guilty until aquitted as far as Im concerned, and should not be let anywhere near the wheel of a car until it can be shown that you were not breaking the law and that you were not a danger to others. The alternative is to allow a potential drunk drive back loose on the roads.

Why not do the same for all crimes. Lets just do away with criminal courts there is no need of them if all that is required is the word of a Garda that someone did something with no opportunity to cross examin. Or do you think it is only in relation to Road Traffic or just drink driving. If AGS believe a person remains a danger they can keep him in custody.

djimi

infosys wrote: »

Why not do the same for all crimes. Lets just do away with criminal courts there is no need of them if all that is required is the word of a Garda that someone did something with no opportunity to cross examin. Or do you think it is only in relation to Road Traffic or just drink driving. If AGS believe a person remains a danger they can keep him in custody.

I think its in relation to a crime where the accused is a potential danger to the general public. If you are breathalized on the side of the road and you fail the test then there is no way on earth that you should be allowed back behind the wheel of a car until you have been acquitted. I dont care if that takes a day/week/month/year or whatever. If it means holding the person in custody until it is sorted out then so be it (that obviously wouldnt happen though as its not a custodial sentence for a drink driving offence).

Sam Russell

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

infosys wrote: »

Thankfully I don't live in the country you want, thankfully we still have that silly idea of innocent until proven guilty. A positive sample only proves that there was a sample that was positive. It does not prove driving, it does not prove a public place, it does not prove the person had execes alcohol in his system within 3 hours of driving. Only when all the evidence is presented to a judge and accepted beyond a reasonable doubt is there a conviction.

I heard of a guy arrested tested and left go he was caught later the same night and sample again. He got a serious ban for being so stupid.

Other than a very short ban a immediate ban without court would be a problem under the ECHR.

In my post, I say that he was caught driving by AGS, and a positive evidential breath test taken. Under those conditions, the driver would be arrested and taken to the local lock-up.

He should be presented in court the next morning, charged with the offence. No-one is denying him his rights anymore than a person accused of other serious indictable offences. He can apply for bail in the district court at the hearing, but the driving ban should start then and there, obviously as set out by the judge. The evidence of the breath test is sufficient for the court to convict (it's in the RTA), only his pleas in mitigation should be heard. A ban is mandatory in these circumstances and no delay is necessary. Too many times, the drunk postpones and delays for a very long time and then tries to get out of it by citing the delays. Start the ban straight away and the incentive is to get it over with quickly.

Sam Russell

djimi wrote: »

I think its in relation to a crime where the accused is a potential danger to the general public. If you are breathalized on the side of the road and you fail the test then there is no way on earth that you should be allowed back behind the wheel of a car until you have been acquitted. I dont care if that takes a day/week/month/year or whatever. If it means holding the person in custody until it is sorted out then so be it (that obviously wouldnt happen though as its not a custodial sentence for a drink driving offence).

......... as its not a mandatory custodial sentence for a drink driving...

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.