Garda using the force.

juneireland

Can someone tell me if this is correct. My sons girlfriend received a summons in the letter box the other day, for being seen..... having a child in the back that was not restrained, no road tax. Can this hold up in court, just being seen.

Doom

Did she travel with no tax and an unrestrained child?

Mint Sauce

juneireland wrote: »

Can someone tell me if this is correct. My sons girlfriend received a summons in the letter box the other day, for being seen..... having a child in the back that was not restrained, no road tax. Can this hold up in court, just being seen.

Putting the child restraint to one side. Does she have her motor tax, if no, how long is it out?

As for being seen, not sure, but gardas word counts for a lot in court.

CiniO

What other proof of having an unrestrained child would you expect?
Only way to know you have unrestrained child is "to see it".

Mena

These are not the penalty points you're looking for?

That being said, could be their word against hers.

onemorechance

juneireland wrote: »

Can someone tell me if this is correct. My sons girlfriend received a summons in the letter box the other day, for being seen..... having a child in the back that was not restrained, no road tax. Can this hold up in court, just being seen.

If the Garda who saw her shows up in court to give evidence then yes it can hold up in court.

vibe666

juneireland wrote: »

Can someone tell me if this is correct. My sons girlfriend received a summons in the letter box the other day, for being seen..... having a child in the back that was not restrained, no road tax. Can this hold up in court, just being seen.

I'd be less concerned with the garda or the car tax and more concerned that your son's girlfriend is the sort of person who would intentionally endanger the life of a child by having them unrestrained in the car.

biko

Was she stopped at any time by Gardai, or did letter just arrive out of the blue?
Does she have tax?
It's not likely the Gardai would be able to notice tax unless car was at a standstill, maybe at a check point.

But yeah, a Garda witness will most probably stand up in court. Is she intending to fight the fine but she did the crime(s).

ace86

juneireland wrote: »

Can someone tell me if this is correct. My sons girlfriend received a summons in the letter box the other day, for being seen..... having a child in the back that was not restrained, no road tax. Can this hold up in court, just being seen.

If she had no tax at the time she will have to pay a fine regardless even if it goes to court.
If the lady in question was seen with an un restrained child in the back seat by the a witness why didnt the gardai come after her and stop her there and then and summon her or give her penalty points on the spot after all it is there job and the interest of safety and the child. If it goes to court I can't see her being convicted because your sons girlfriend can argue the child was restrained and a witness saw something and could have been mistaken.
I'd contact a solictor for clarity anyway.

slimjimmc

Garda could have been on foot or otherwise unable to stop the car and just recorded the number plate and perhaps description of the driver. A quick check later of the database could show no tax against her plate. If someone else was driving the car at the time then the registered owner gets the notice unless they declare the true driver.
A Garda has a special duty to uphold the law and simply seeing an offence is often ample evidence for the law.

Mister Man

I've heard of something similar happening to someone a few months back actually. For no NCT, rather then tax.
Got a letter in the post about court.
Went, said he wasn't driving it, and got away with it. He said the main reason was they never had any record of pulling him over, or that it was even him driving it when it was seen. Could go either way though.
Tell he to cop on and restrain the child though. Just asking for trouble.

Supergurrier

Read title thinking Garda used Jedi powers.

Left dissapointed

keithclancy

Yes, he saw it happen.

If he talked to her about it he would have wasted time to see other things happening

Mikros

juneireland wrote: »

Can someone tell me if this is correct. My sons girlfriend received a summons in the letter box the other day, for being seen..... having a child in the back that was not restrained, no road tax. Can this hold up in court, just being seen.

What exactly was the summons for? Was she stopped and spoken to by the Guard at the time? Did she receive a fixed charge notice before? Did she pay that or ignore it? There is more to the story there I'd suspect.

To answer your question yes the Guard will give his eye witness evidence in court. It is up to the Judge to determine if it is credible but generally it will be taken as a given.

I'd have little sympathy for someone driving with unrestrained kids in their car.

vibe666

So are the garda known for sending random fines to random people for no reason?

Cee-Jay-Cee

juneireland wrote: »

Can someone tell me if this is correct. My sons girlfriend received a summons in the letter box the other day, for being seen..... having a child in the back that was not restrained, no road tax. Can this hold up in court, just being seen.

So your sons girlfriend is looking for a defense for no tax and recklessly endangering a childlike by having them unrestrained in the rear of her car?

juneireland

Hi
My point exactly, if guard saw child without restraints she should have been stopped and given a warning etc. not left to drive on. (child is always trying to climb out of baby chair, so obviously caught at the time of trying to escape. Tax only just run out, 3 weeks overdue. She was not stopped and knew nothing until summons arrived in post. Guard was able to jot down car plate, so must of been driving behind, so to look at escaping child and no road tax he had very good eye sight.

Mr Simpson

juneireland wrote: »

Hi
My point exactly, if guard saw child without restraints she should have been stopped and given a warning etc. not left to drive on. (child is always trying to climb out of baby chair, so obviously caught at the time of trying to escape. Tax only just run out, 3 weeks overdue. She was not stopped and knew nothing until summons arrived in post. Guard was able to jot down car plate, so must of been driving behind, so to look at escaping child and no road tax he had very good eye sight.

Or he saw the unrestrained child, and when he checked PULSE the car showed as having no tax. You dont have to see an old tax disc to find out if the car is taxed or not

bmstuff

Title?
I thought you got kicked in the teeth or something...

dilallio

juneireland wrote: »

Can someone tell me if this is correct. My sons girlfriend received a summons in the letter box the other day, for being seen..... having a child in the back that was not restrained, no road tax. Can this hold up in court, just being seen.

Tell the judge that the child crawled into the front and ate the tax-disk.
It will be grand.

veetwin

juneireland wrote: »

Hi
My point exactly, if guard saw child without restraints she should have been stopped and given a warning etc. not left to drive on. (child is always trying to climb out of baby chair, so obviously caught at the time of trying to escape. Tax only just run out, 3 weeks overdue. She was not stopped and knew nothing until summons arrived in post. Guard was able to jot down car plate, so must of been driving behind, so to look at escaping child and no road tax he had very good eye sight.

Maybe he or she was a guard on the beat and not in a position to stop the driver?

If the child escapes their restraints then the driver has to stop...no excuses, no high horses, no debates. I say this as the parent of 2 children who know better at this stage. Belts on or we're going nowhere.

Tax out by 3 weeks should be no problem in court. Obviously by now she has back taxed the car and the judge would strike out this summons.

It's a big jump to assume that the guard was abusing their power by issuing two summons for these offences.

challengemaster

Yup, it's allowed. Similarly if they form the opinion that a car is speeding, that's enough to issue a fine & points. No proof needed!

CiniO

veetwin wrote: »

If the child escapes their restraints then the driver has to stop...no excuses, no high horses, no debates.

If driver is able to stop or not depends on road conditions.
It's not possible to stop everywhere.

Tax out by 3 weeks should be no problem in court. Obviously by now she has back taxed the car and the judge would strike out this summons.

And that's the stupidity of our tax system.
For driving untaxed should be a proper fine, not just possibility to backtax and be grand in court. That's the reason why old motortax system of declaring cars off the road retrospectively didn't work - and they change it to new system which is also not going to work.
All what they had to do was to start issuing heavy fines for anyone found driving untaxed vehicle, and no system change would be necessery.

No Pants

CJC999 wrote: »

So your sons girlfriend is looking for a defense for no tax and recklessly endangering a childlike by having them unrestrained in the rear of her car?

Sounds like it from the posts so far and the claims that the guard should have stopped the car. Perhaps he wasn't wearing his hat?

delly

Was at an open day recently in my local station where they showed the CCTV system and how it could zoom in on the tax disk. No reason to say something similar couldn't have happened.

Carawaystick

get teh child to give evidence of how they hate the straps and are always put on....

Julio1

:D:D

Supergurrier wrote: »

Read title thinking Garda used Jedi powers.

Left dissapointed

juneireland

hi
I'm not saying guard was abusing his power, I'm a grandmom of 10, I also have a child with autism, so I am all for restraints OBVIOUSLY. What I am saying is, if it was only for having a child that was unrestrained, is it not a case of her word against theirs, court costs etc. As for not being restrained, child was in baby seat, just able to pull off straps from shoulders, waist straps are still there. Its not only child seat belts, what will we be seen doing next

slimjimmc

juneireland wrote: »

hi
I'm not saying guard was abusing his power, I'm a grandmom of 10, I also have a child with autism, so I am all for restraints OBVIOUSLY. What I am saying is, if it was only for having a child that was unrestrained, is it not a case of her word against theirs, court costs etc. As for not being restrained, child was in baby seat, just able to pull off straps from shoulders, waist straps are still there.

Child is still not properly restrained. It won't be catapulted out of the car in an impact but it could suffer horrific facial/spinal injuries and the impact to the back of the head during recoil could be fatal.

juneireland wrote: »

Its not only child seat belts, what will we be seen doing next

Holding a mobile phone, texting, preening oneself in the mirror, reading, driving with both hands off the steering wheel? Seen it all, pity a Garda wasn't around to see it though.

No Pants

juneireland wrote: »

What I am saying is, if it was only for having a child that was unrestrained, is it not a case of her word against theirs, court costs etc.

You do know what a witness is, don't you?

You can always take the case to court and accuse the Guard of lying under oath. I presume you would have some proof to offer.

Patrickheg

vibe666 wrote: »

I'd be less concerned with the garda or the car tax and more concerned that your son's girlfriend is the sort of person who would intentionally endanger the life of a child by having them unrestrained in the car.

Do you also judge your parents who most likely carried you unrestrained in their car?

Del2005

Patrickheg wrote: »

Do you also judge your parents who most likely carried you unrestrained in their car?

There where no rear seat belts when I was a child. People drank like a fish and drove home. Times have changed and that's one of the reasons we've gone from killing several hundred people a year on our roads to the low amount now.

Del2005

juneireland wrote: »

hi
I'm not saying guard was abusing his power, I'm a grandmom of 10, I also have a child with autism, so I am all for restraints OBVIOUSLY. What I am saying is, if it was only for having a child that was unrestrained, is it not a case of her word against theirs, court costs etc. As for not being restrained, child was in baby seat, just able to pull off straps from shoulders, waist straps are still there. Its not only child seat belts, what will we be seen doing next

If the child was properly restrained when put in the car they wouldn't be able to get their shoulders out of the restraints. They need to be tight, only enough space for a few fingers between the child and harness, or else they don't work correctly.

Garda can arrest and prosecute for a lot of things they see. Like fighting, criminal damage, speeding etc. It'll come down to who the judge believes in court and they usually believe the officer of the law.

n1ck

juneireland wrote: »

Tax only just run out, 3 weeks overdue.

You get a notice a month before your tax runs out to renew it, so it took her 7 weeks? And that's only because she got caught. She has the money to run a car, she has the money to tax a car.

mathepac

juneireland wrote: »

... what will we be seen doing next

Who knows but if it's a Guard with good eye-sight and ye're caught speeding, using s phone behind the wheel, breaking the lights, dangerous parking, hopefully he or she will send a summons / fine in the post to ye again.

No Pants

Del2005 wrote: »

There where no rear seat belts when I was a child.

No retracting seat belts in the front either. You had to hang them up when you were done using them. Most cars I remember had them pooled down the side of the seats, ready to trip you up when exiting the car. Some people treat their cars like mobile skips.

Patrickheg

Del2005 wrote: »

There where no rear seat belts when I was a child. People drank like a fish and drove home. Times have changed and that's one of the reasons we've gone from killing several hundred people a year on our roads to the low amount now.

Go back and read my post including the post I quoted. I'm not saying it's right to drive without a child restrained I'm merely saying the post I quoted was very condescending.

So you are saying that somebody who drink drives is the same as driving with an unrestrained child?

Have the motorways / improved roads / increased guards presence / safer cars done noting at all to do with the fall on road deaths? Do you work for the RSA?

Alun

slimjimmc wrote: »

Holding a mobile phone, texting, preening oneself in the mirror, reading, driving with both hands off the steering wheel? Seen it all, pity a Garda wasn't around to see it though.

Saw an ISM driving instructor driving along the M50 yesterday doing just that, unwrapping a sandwich or something like that, and not only that but he was hogging the middle lane. There really is no hope :rolleyes:

Caliden

Tax is not 'only just out' if it's 3 weeks out. If it was out 3/4 days, fair enough. 3 weeks may as well be a month out

Yakuza

While not for a second condoning carrying a child unrestrained intentionally, the fact that you can get summonsed out of the blue for something that you weren't stopped for rankles me somewhat. ANPR etc can be used to detect out of date tax, insurance etc (it's objective), but to get summonsed for something that was seen and not acted on then and there goes against natural justice (from my layman's perspective, anyway).

God knows my own kids have wriggled out of their straps or accidentally popped the seatbelt button on occasion.

pippip

Yakuza wrote: »

While not for a second condoning carrying a child unrestrained intentionally, the fact that you can get summonsed out of the blue for something that you weren't stopped for rankles me somewhat. ANPR etc can be used to detect out of date tax, insurance etc (it's objective), but to get summonsed for something that was seen and not acted on then and there goes against natural justice (from my layman's perspective, anyway).

God knows my own kids have wriggled out of their straps or accidentally popped the seatbelt button on occasion.

Always the possibility the garda was on foot and traffic moved off before they reached the offending car.

I know alot of gardai mightn't bother making a note and following it up when they got back to the station but the garda may have been a new parent themselves or affected but a similar instance and was more determined to follow it all the way.

Del2005

Yakuza wrote: »

While not for a second condoning carrying a child unrestrained intentionally, the fact that you can get summonsed out of the blue for something that you weren't stopped for rankles me somewhat. ANPR etc can be used to detect out of date tax, insurance etc (it's objective), but to get summonsed for something that was seen and not acted on then and there goes against natural justice (from my layman's perspective, anyway).

God knows my own kids have wriggled out of their straps or accidentally popped the seatbelt button on occasion.

If the child is properly restrained in the car then they can't get free. A UK survey a few years ago found a huge percentage of children weren't properly restrained in cars.
The Garda was doing their job. The child wasn't restrained and obviously the Garda couldn't get the car stopped to issue a ticket. I'm glad that it was followed up, at least it shows a Garda who's willing to go the extra bit to protect innocent people from injury.

RustyNut

No Pants wrote: »

No retracting seat belts in the front either. You had to hang them up when you were done using them. Most cars I remember had them pooled down the side of the seats, ready to trip you up when exiting the car. Some people treat their cars like mobile skips.

I remember the Oul Lads Vauxhall Victor with a bench seat and no seat belts.

The emergency restraint system consisted of himself reaching across the front of whatever bunch of kids managed to squeez in onto the seat whenever he hit the breaks a bit hard resulting in plenty of face planting into the windscreen or landing in the footwell.

Good times, good times.

No Pants

RustyNut wrote: »

I remember the Oul Lads Vauxhall Victor with a bench seat and no seat belts.

The emergency restraint system consisted of himself reaching across the front of whatever bunch of kids managed to squeez in onto the seat whenever he hit the breaks a bit hard resulting in plenty of face planting into the windscreen or landing in the footwell.

Good times, good times.

My Da had to get a crankshaft replaced twice under warranty in the early to mid 80s. For one of the replacements, the dealership gave him the loan of a car. This car had no passenger seat. In it's place there was a wooden kitchen chair. It was loose, not fixed to the floor in any way.

slimjimmc

Yakuza wrote: »

While not for a second condoning carrying a child unrestrained intentionally, the fact that you can get summonsed out of the blue for something that you weren't stopped for rankles me somewhat. ANPR etc can be used to detect out of date tax, insurance etc (it's objective), but to get summonsed for something that was seen and not acted on then and there goes against natural justice (from my layman's perspective, anyway).

God knows my own kids have wriggled out of their straps or accidentally popped the seatbelt button on occasion.

If the Garda witnesses an offence that is generally enough, there is no legal requirement to inform you directly of the error of your ways. For example, if Garda saw your unattended car illegally parked in a street would you expect him to ignore it because you're not around, hang around until you show up, or just go ahead in your absence with the fixed penalty notice which you get some weeks later in the post? Same situation.