40 year ban for driving without insurance

Stheno

Judge gives three men 40 year driving bans for driving without insurance

A judge in Tallaght gave three men 40 year bans for driving without insurance.

He made no differentiation between one offender who was a first time offender and the other two who had five and 22 previous offences against them.

On top of the ban they each got a 5 month suspended sentence and a fine of €500.

Wonder if any of them will appeal?

40 years seems a bit excessive imo

Northern Monkey

Good enough for them, but it probably won't stop them continuing to drive (without insurance).

howamidifferent

No likelyhood of them not appealing. He'd have been better off not suspending the jail sentences to ensure they learned their lesson. :mad:

Bigus

A bit unfair for them all to be treated equally, won't stand up on appeal.

BMJD

The 29-year-old was a serial uninsured driver the court heard.

Judge Coughlan heard that Karl Grant had been already disqualified when he was stopped by gardai three times for driving without insurance.

Don't think that route of punishment is going too well, yer honour. congrats on the head lines though!

kaimera

It's only unfair until one of them crashes into you.

Anan1

I find it quite amazing that anyone would consider a 40 year ban appropriate for a first time offence of driving without insurance.

Cuddlesworth

Our justice system is based on precedent, so all three are 100% going to be quashed on appeal. All this is, is a waste of taxpayers money.

Stheno

Anan1 wrote: »

I find it quite amazing that anyone would consider a 40 year ban appropriate for a first time offence of driving without insurance.

That's what I thought, whatever about the two with previous a first time offence getting a 40 year ban seemed very excessive to me.

Reminds me of Mary Martin who used be a judge in Portlaoise District Court and handed out severe sentences for driving offences.

Nothing like the ones above however.

cletus

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Our justice system is based on precedent, so all three are 100% going to be quashed on appeal. All this is, is a waste of taxpayers money.

exactly, this is essentially a judge making public his personal opinion on the matter, knowing full well it will be appealed

corktina

`but it does cause a lot of trouble and expense for the offender to go appeal it.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Driving without insurance is a selfish crime, and I certainly support any and all methods of extinguishing it.
Agree too, the jail time for the 2 with previous should not have been suspended.

Scortho

The only thing unfair about it all was that the publican got the same sentence as the young lads who'd previously been banned from driving. Its clear that the two repeat offenders hadn't learned their lesson from the previous bans/current ban so they should have received a heftier sentence.

Maybe bans of 5 years for the first off and then 20 years for the repeat offenders along with something like 400 hours of community service. At least then it doesn't cost the tax payer as much to lock them up and removes the chances of them being out after a day/week/month etc.

Sentences should get progressively longer, not a blanket sentence that doesn't take into account your previous record. One chap now has 5 convictions for driving without insurance.

mitosis

Makes no difference banning them for 4 years or 40 years. If they drive without insurance they will continue to do so when banned. Two are serial offenders already banned, the other is a business owner who ought to have no reasonable reason why he wouldn't be insured. I wonder is his pub insured.

Custodial sentence and seizure/crushing of the vehicle is the only way these feckers will be corrected. Read through the Echo paper every week and it is a litany of repeat offenders for no insurance, people already banned getting banned. Pointless.

Anan1

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Driving without insurance is a selfish crime, and I certainly support any and all methods of extinguishing it.

How far would you go with that? A fine? A ban? Imprisonment? Execution? Punishment needs to be proportionate, and a 40 year ban is almost unheard of even in cases where other peoples lives were endangered.

djimi

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

.
Agree too, the jail time for the 2 with previous should not have been suspended.

Agreed. The lad with 22 previous convictions especially should be looking at a lengthy custodial sentence. At this point he isnt going to learn his lesson otherwise, nor is he likely to stop driving without insurance if released.

40 years was harsh on the first time offender (10 years might be more fitting). Its a nice article for the judge to grab some headlines, but there is no way that any of the sentences will hold up on appeal, and in reality he has just wasted everyones time and money. Just be sensible from the start when sentencing.

wexie

[QUOTE=Scortho;87272521

Maybe bans of 5 years for the first off and then 20 years for the repeat offenders along with something like 400 hours of community service. At least then it doesn't cost the tax payer as much to lock them up and removes the chances of them being out after a day/week/month etc.
.[/QUOTE]

that they'd probably drive to....:mad:

Scortho

Anan1 wrote: »

How far would you go with that? A fine? A ban? Imprisonment? Execution? Punishment needs to be proportionate, and a 40 year ban is almost unheard of even in cases where other peoples lives were endangered.

Id say 400 hours + of community service on top of a ban for repeat offenders is the way to go.
Locking them up is too expensive and its a greater insult to society when they walk free early because they're not a serious threat.

JillyQ

40 year ban isnt long enough.

Del2005

mitosis wrote: »

Makes no difference banning them for 4 years or 40 years. If they drive without insurance they will continue to do so when banned. Two are serial offenders already banned, the other is a business owner who ought to have no reasonable reason why he wouldn't be insured. I wonder is his pub insured.

Custodial sentence and seizure/crushing of the vehicle is the only way these feckers will be corrected. Read through the Echo paper every week and it is a litany of repeat offenders for no insurance, people already banned getting banned. Pointless.

The cars that they drive are usually only fit for the crusher. Taking it off them is no loss to them they just go out and buy another cheap one and drive that till caught.

Anan1

Scortho wrote: »

Id say 400 hours + of community service on top of a ban for repeat offenders is the way to go.
Locking them up is too expensive and its a greater insult to society when they walk free early because they're not a serious threat.

Driving without insurance doesn't endanger other road users - it's essentially theft. If you take away the publican's license then he (apparently) can't work, which helps nobody. I think the most appropriate response for a first offence is a large fine. It mightn't satisfy the bloodlust of the angry mob but it will punish the guy, act as a deterrent to others, and provide restitution to society.

djimi

Scortho wrote: »

Id say 400 hours + of community service on top of a ban for repeat offenders is the way to go.
Locking them up is too expensive and its a greater insult to society when they walk free early because they're not a serious threat.

I think for repeat offenders like the bloke with 22 previous convictions there should be no other option but to lock him up for a not insignificant amount of time. He is a danger to other road users, has shown no regard for the law before (in that he has already been caught driving without insurnace) and will most likely continue to ignore the law in future until he is caught again.

This country needs to significantly toughen up on a lot of laws as a whole, but in this case if people thought that repeat offenses for things like no insurance would guarantee you a 12 month stretch in Mountjoy then maybe a few more might reconsider.

Scortho

wexie wrote: »

that they'd probably drive to....:mad:

Possibly yes, but its better than giving them a 40 year ban that they're going to drive around anyway afterwards.
Yeah they might have got a suspended sentence, but does anyone who gets 6 months in prison actually serve 6 months?
At least with community service they've to do something....i can think of lots of graffiti that needs cleaning

Scortho

djimi wrote: »

I think for repeat offenders like the bloke with 22 previous convictions there should be no other option but to lock him up for a not insignificant amount of time. He is a danger to other road users, has shown no regard for the law before (in that he has already been caught driving without insurnace) and will most likely continue to ignore the law in future until he is caught again.

This country needs to significantly toughen up on a lot of laws as a whole, but in this case if people thought that repeat offenses for things like no insurance would guarantee you a 12 month stretch in Mountjoy then maybe a few more might reconsider.

thing is has anyone who's been sentenced to 6 months in jail in the last few years, actually spent 6 months in jail?
Or are they let out early?

Any cases that I can think of, they're let out earlier than what their sentence was for.

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

Driving without insurance doesn't endanger other road users - it's essentially theft. If you take away the publican's license then he (apparently) can't work, which helps nobody. I think the most appropriate response for a first offence is a large fine. It mightn't satisfy the bloodlust of the angry mob but it will punish the guy, act as a deterrent to others, and provide restitution to society.

The counter argument to that is if him losing his license means that he cant work then its up to him to ensure that he doesnt lose his license. Sentencing in these cases should act as a deterrent to others as much as a punishment to those convicted. Pussyfooting around an issue like driving without insurance (which handing out fines basically is) is not going to send out much of a message. A couple of years off the road for a first offense and a year in jail for subsequent offenses might actually make a few more people think twice.

Anan1

Scortho wrote: »

Possibly yes, but its better than giving them a 40 year ban that they're going to drive around anyway afterwards.
Yeah they might have got a suspended sentence, but does anyone who gets 6 months in prison actually serve 6 months?
At least with community service they've to do something....i can think of lots of graffiti that needs cleaning

I agree that community service is far better than prison, both for them and, particularly, for us.

djimi

Scortho wrote: »

thing is has anyone who's been sentenced to 6 months in jail in the last few years, actually spent 6 months in jail?
Or are they let out early?

Any cases that I can think of, they're let out earlier than what their sentence was for.

Well then sentence him for two years and let him serve a year and a day.

wexie

Scortho wrote: »

Possibly yes, but its better than giving them a 40 year ban that they're going to drive around anyway afterwards.
Yeah they might have got a suspended sentence, but does anyone who gets 6 months in prison actually serve 6 months?
At least with community service they've to do something....i can think of lots of graffiti that needs cleaning

I'm not quite sure what to think, community service seems more fitting (lots of roads need cleaning as well) but it wouldn't stop them from just continuing ignoring the law.

Prison time would at least stop them from driving, but you're right the tax payer would just end up paying for it.

Either way a 40 year ban is just ludicrous, if it was actually implemented (and stuck to) it'd pretty much guarantee they'd become repeat offenders (if they weren't already).

seamus

Anything over five years is pointless tbh. This ridiculous case aside, if someone gets a ban longer than five years, then this isn't their first time being caught uninsured or disqualified or both. So imposing further bans is pointless, it's like imposing a life sentence on someone who's already serving a life sentence, i.e. it's no punishment at all.

What do you do? Mandatory prison sentences, no chance of suspension, seems fair. But apparently you can't legally do that, a judge is entitled to his discretion.
The Gardai should have more statutory roadside powers. If the driver is known to be disqualified, the Garda takes the vehicle and if it's hasn't been stolen, it's crushed, whether or not it belonged to the driver. Allowing your vehicle to be driven by someone who is uninsured is also a serious offence, the Gardai should exercise this more and it should also be a serious offence to allow a disqualified driver to drive your vehicle.

At the moment they get stopped, arrested, released, and on the way home, they get their car and drive it home. Cos they don't give a ****.

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

The counter argument to that is if him losing his license means that he cant work then its up to him to ensure that he doesnt lose his license. Sentencing in these cases should act as a deterrent to others as much as a punishment to those convicted. Pussyfooting around an issue like driving without insurance (which handing out fines basically is) is not going to send out much of a message. A couple of years off the road for a first offense and a year in jail for subsequent offenses might actually make a few more people think twice.

Is a fine pussyfooting around? A ban might hurt him more (or he might just put the feet up and retire early), but it definitely hurts us more. Same goes for prison. You have to ask yourself what you're trying to achieve here.

pred racer

I agree the sentences are silly and wont stand up on appeal, but if the headlines generated from this cause one scrote to decide that paying their insurance is better than the alternative.........job well done that Judge!

In my (unfortunately rather extensive) experience with the Irish judiciary, I have found them to be fair, open minded people that do a very difficult job. And afaik they only do this sort of stuff when completely frustrated due to the ineffectiveness of the punishments they are handing out.

vectra

Anan1 wrote: »

I find it quite amazing that anyone would consider a 40 year ban appropriate for a first time offence of driving without insurance.

Not really.

Had that driver knocked down and killed someones parent.
Then that person could live though 40 years of suffering.

Which would you prefer to see happening?

Anan1

pred racer wrote: »

I agree the sentences are silly and wont stand up on appeal, but if the headlines generated from this cause one scrote to decide that paying their insurance is better than the alternative.........job well done that Judge!

Thing is, all the headlines generated from this case will cause people to think is that the judge is a clown.

pred racer wrote: »

In my (unfortunately rather extensive) experience with the Irish judiciary, I have found them to be fair, open minded people that do a very difficult job. And afaik they only do this sort of stuff when completely frustrated due to the ineffectiveness of the punishments they are handing out.

Sure we all only generally do stupid sh1t when we're frustrated! This doesn't change the fact that we're paying for his stupid sh1t.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Anan1 wrote: »

Driving without insurance doesn't endanger other road users - it's essentially theft. If you take away the publican's license then he (apparently) can't work, which helps nobody. I think the most appropriate response for a first offence is a large fine. It mightn't satisfy the bloodlust of the angry mob but it will punish the guy, act as a deterrent to others, and provide restitution to society.

Are you for real?

Anan1

vectra wrote: »

Not really.

Had that driver knocked down and killed someones parent.
Then that person could live though 40 years of suffering.

Which would you prefer to see happening?

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Are you for real?

Driving without insurance doesn't cause accidents.

wexie

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Are you for real?

Anan1 wrote: »

?? You or I could kill someone tomorrow, should we be taken off the road to prevent that possibility? Driving without insurance doesn't cause accidents.

While I definitely don't always agree with Anan he's right in this case.

Makes **** all difference if you're killed by a driver with or without insurance.

Still dead.

Now....if you want to argue whether or not the TYPE of driver that goes around without insurance MIGHT be more likely to be a careless driver.....fair enough.

But not having insurance doesn't make them any more or less dangerous on the road.

vectra

Anan1 wrote: »

?? You or I could kill someone tomorrow, should we be taken off the road to prevent that possibility? Driving without insurance doesn't cause accidents.

Are you on drugs or something?
Sounds to me as though you are saying with driving with no insurance is fine.

ted1

Anan1 wrote: »

I find it quite amazing that anyone would consider a 40 year ban appropriate for a first time offence of driving without insurance.

Bollox, the laws the law. those pricks are loading our premiums and have no respect for us.

mloc123

I always find it odd that people caught without insurance or a licence are giving a driving ban... as they respected the law so much beforehand, I presume they will respect the ban also.

Anan1

ted1 wrote: »

Bollox, the laws the law.

Exactly, and there is no provision in law for a 40 year ban for a first offence of driving without insurance. This is why we all know that it will be overturned on appeal.

ted1 wrote: »

those pricks are loading our premiums and have no respect for us.

Agreed.

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

Is a fine pussyfooting around? A ban might hurt him more (or he might just put the feet up and retire early), but it definitely hurts us more. Same goes for prison. You have to ask yourself what you're trying to achieve here.

Surely a case like this is acting as a deterrant as much as it is a punishment? Most people would see a fine as being lighter than a ban or a custodial sentence, even if its a hefty enough fine (I know Id sooner pay €1000 fine than to spend time off the road or in jail). As a deterrant, the sentence must be heavy enough to actually affect the person fairly significantly, and in this case for a first offense a year or two off the road would do just that. If they dont learn their lesson the first time then a year in jail might focus their mind (as well as taking someone off the road properly who has shown that they have no regard for the law).

It might sound harsh, but too many laws in this country are broken because we pussyfoot around punishments. Want to drive on your own with a learner permit? Fire ahead; you will only get a slap on the wrist if caught and be allowed on your way. Want to see if your car can top 130mph? Thatll only cost you €80 (cheaper than a track day) and two points. In this case, want to drive uninsured? For a lot of people the fine would probably work out cheaper than their premium.

pred racer

Anan1 wrote: »

Thing is, all the headlines generated from this case will cause people to think is that the judge is a clown.

Sure we all only generally do stupid sh1t when we're frustrated! This doesn't change the fact that we're paying for his stupid sh1t.

True, but the people I'm talking about aren't very bright;)

You're right on the second point too. I do however have sympathy for the Judges! For example I seen a Judge freak out when a woman was brought before him for assaulting 2 Ban gardai with a vodka bottle.

His question was "what am I supposed to do? I sentenced you to 6months in jail........3 week ago"

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

Surely a case like this is acting as a deterrant as much as it is a punishment? Most people would see a fine as being lighter than a ban or a custodial sentence, even if its a hefty enough fine (I know Id sooner pay €1000 fine than to spend time off the road or in jail). As a deterrant, the sentence must be heavy enough to actually affect the person fairly significantly, and in this case for a first offense a year or two off the road would do just that. If they dont learn their lesson the first time then a year in jail might focus their mind (as well as taking someone off the road properly who has shown that they have no regard for the law).

It might sound harsh, but too many laws in this country are broken because we pussyfoot around punishments. Want to drive on your own with a learner permit? Fire ahead; you will only get a slap on the wrist if caught and be allowed on your way. Want to see if your car can top 130mph? Thatll only cost you €80 (cheaper than a track day) and two points. In this case, want to drive uninsured? For a lot of people the fine would probably work out cheaper than their premium.

This particular case is only making an ass of the law. In general terms I agree with your post, but punishment needs to fit the offence - it has to be an effective deterrent without costing society too much. Applied intelligently, fines and community service can benefit society as well as providing a good deterrent. As a society we can't afford to tilt too much in the direction of either 'pussyfooting around' or cutting our own nose off to spite our face.

Anan1

vectra wrote: »

Are you on drugs or something?
Sounds to me as though you are saying with driving with no insurance is fine.

This post is too stupid to even begin to reply to. Let's you and I just leave it at that.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Anan1 wrote: »

Driving without insurance doesn't cause accidents.

It doesn't, but the reckless disregard shown by not having insurance is borne out by the fact that (a) it is difficult to get compensated when you are hit by an uninsured driver and (B) oftentimes the NCB of the insured driver is affected even when they are not at fault.

Now, please point out where I said that Driving without insurance does cause accidents

Seems like someone is upset that they have made an irrational argument and been called on it, now is resorting to black font and unrelated statements.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Anan1 wrote: »

This post is too stupid to even begin to reply to. Let's you and I just leave it at that.

Oh but yes you have.
That's a really smug way of saying "I'm right and that's it".

MuppetCheck

All the judge has really done is get in the headlines and create more work for the court system as a result of an OTT sentence.

I can understand a token lengthy ban for the re-offenders and a slightly lower one for the first time offender. They are going to drive at some stage again. The first time offender has obviously got grounds for an appeal.

Surely the proper way to do it would be a realistic ban coupled with something that would hurt them personally/financially like a custodial sentence. Something might be learned from that by the offenders. Driving without insurance is not the most serious crime in the world at the end of the day and a flat out ban like that isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

galwaytt

A ban is a waste of time for people already banned, and for whom a court-imposed ban has no relevance. They'll sit into a car and drive anyway - what have they to lose..?

Appealing may end up costing them zero if they get legal aid, so that's fruitless.

A fine for those without means is equally useless - it can't be enforced.

So, we're back to custodial, and no, I don't think community service would do. Unless the community service is onerous, or, failing to keep it gives you immediate remand to custody. So the community service order would be XXXX hours or XXXX days in prison - like when you fail to keep the peace, or breach your bail conditions.

So, maybe a mixture of both. If they ain't got wages to sequester, they have social welfare/other. Like the LPT, just sequester it, and not in €1/week amounts either. A nice big chunk would have the desired effect. Otherwise again, they're just laughing at us, and we're bigger eejits for suffering it.

djimi

Anan1 wrote: »

This particular case is only making an ass of the law. In general terms I agree with your post, but punishment needs to fit the offence - it has to be an effective deterrent without costing society too much. Applied intelligently, fines and community service can benefit society as well as providing a good deterrent. As a society we can't afford to tilt too much in the direction of either 'pussyfooting around' or cutting our own nose off to spite our face.

I agree completely; in this case the judge comes out looking like an attention seeker desperately looking to grab the headlines. It will go to appeal where there isnt a hope that it will be upheld.

I have no problem with fines and community service for most offenses. There are some however that should carry a more immediate and severe punishment; to me things like drink driving and driving uninsured fall into this category. My problem really is that for a lot of offenses the punishment does not act as a deterrant at all.

Anan1

galwaytt wrote: »

A fine for those without means is equally useless - it can't be enforced.

So, we're back to custodial, and no, I don't think community service would do. Unless the community service is onerous, or, failing to keep it gives you immediate remand to custody. So the community service order would be XXXX hours or XXXX days in prison - like when you fail to keep the peace, or breach your bail conditions.

I agree that custodial always has to be there as a threat behind community service/fines, but it's in all our interests that the threat not have to be implemented. Of course the more credible the threat, the less likely it is to have to be resorted to.

galwaytt wrote: »

So, maybe a mixture of both. If they ain't got wages to sequester, they have social welfare/other. Like the LPT, just sequester it, and not in €1/week amounts either. A nice big chunk would have the desired effect. Otherwise again, they're just laughing at us, and we're bigger eejits for suffering it.

+1

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

I have no problem with fines and community service for most offenses. There are some however that should carry a more immediate and severe punishment; to me things like drink driving and driving uninsured fall into this category.

Drink driving and driving uninsured are completely different things. The first physically endangers all of us, the second is theft. I think they demand different responses.

djimi wrote: »

My problem really is that for a lot of offenses the punishment does not act as a deterrant at all.

Agreed, but IMO sometimes the crowd-pleasers aren't the solutions that work best.