court summons?

michealkirwan

I have recieved a summons for a motoring offence but the summons was delivered to my my parents house where my sister also lives and she signed for the summons. Does the recipient who is I not have to sign for it for it to be legal? Also for the guards to prove that i recieved it?

source

michealkirwan wrote: »

I have recieved a summons for a motoring offence but the summons was delivered to my my parents house where my sister also lives and she signed for the summons. Does the recipient who is I not have to sign for it for it to be legal? Also for the guards to prove that i recieved it?

Stop trying to squirm out of it:

http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/8652fb610b0b37a980256db700399507/e0b5fdf14c8d3ac980256d2b0046b3d1?OpenDocument

theblaqueguy

No I don't think so as long as the person that signed for the summons is over 18 then they are obliged to inform about the summons and give it to you

Bepolite

michealkirwan wrote: »

I have recieved a summons for a motoring offence but the summons was delivered to my my parents house where my sister also lives and she signed for the summons. Does the recipient who is I not have to sign for it for it to be legal? Also for the guards to prove that i recieved it?

If you check over the summons carefully you may find small errors that you can use you can use to escape your liability. Just turn up on the day and refuse to answer to your name, insist on speaking Irish and make sure you keep telling the Judge you don't recognise admiralty law.

Let us know how that goes.

Losty Dublin

Bepolite wrote: »

If you check over the summons carefully you may find small errors that you can use you can use to escape your liability. Just turn up on the day and refuse to answer to your name, insist on speaking Irish and make sure you keep telling the Judge you don't recognise admiralty law.

Let us know how that goes.

I got off a drink driving charge as the strings on the Plain of the family Guinness pint glass which I was drinking out off at the time was 2 over what is stated by law.

V.W.L 11

care to enlighten us with what the charge was???e.g could you have paid a fixed charged penalty notice to deal with the matter or was the offence a mandatory court appearance

Cody Pomeray

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

care to enlighten us with what the charge was???e.g could you have paid a fixed charged penalty notice to deal with the matter or was the offence a mandatory court appearance

Am I missing something?

How would that change the nature of the summons?

@ OP -- a common problem is where people take what they've heard about defective warrants, and apply those principles to summonses in toto.

Summonses are not directly comparable to warrants.

It's pretty difficult to establish that a summons is defective, relative to a warrant.

michealkirwan

people used to get away with summons not being delivered directly to them such as changes in address and working away on business. and such. no a fine id have paid and being happy with!

V.W.L 11

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Am I missing something?

How would that change the nature of the summons?

@ OP -- a common problem is where people take what they've heard about defective warrants, and apply those principles to summonses in toto.

Summonses are not directly comparable to warrants.

It's pretty difficult to establish that a summons is defective, relative to a warrant.

i aint the one who the summons was issued against mate nor did i make reference to any defect

V.W.L 11

michealkirwan wrote: »

people used to get away with summons not being delivered directly to them such as changes in address and working away on business. and such. no a fine id have paid and being happy with!

so you are saying you never got the fine???

michealkirwan

what are you on about you werent mentioned i was replying to someone else who commented anyway im deleting this thread now

V.W.L 11

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

That's nice but I wasn't answering your specific question. We can't give legal advice.

You seem to me to be raising the subject of a defect. I am simply making a general statement on that topic: i.e. defective summonses are not like defective search warrants, I can think of things which would make a search warrant defective, which would not (and, have not) made summonses defective.

I'm just pointing out, as a general statement, that people shouldn't take what they've heard about warrants and apply them to summonses. This doesn't necessarily have to apply to you, but it might.

look back through the thread it was my comment you replied to hence the reply i gave

Cody Pomeray

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

look back through the thread it was my comment you replied to hence the reply i gave

Actually, the first part of my original comment was directed at you, there were two parts to it.

Why would it matter if the summons 'originated' as a fixed charge penalty? How is that of consequence?

V.W.L 11

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Actually, the first part of my original comment was directed at you, there were two parts to it.

Why would it matter if the summons 'originated' as a fixed charge penalty? How is that of consequence?

by paying the fine the summons and court appearance that goes with it wouldnt have happened,you could end up with a conviction unless you get a judge who is in a great humour and strikes out the charge

Cody Pomeray

V.W.L 11 wrote: »

by paying the fine the summons and court appearance that goes with it wouldnt have happened

oh right I thought you were raising some matter of legal relevance. my mistake.

hullaballoo

I'm locking this thread purely on the basis that people are behaving like children. Can we please keep the standards above junior infants?