Arguing the speeding ticket

Vica

Hi, got a speeding ticket with the photo of the number, 82 in 60 zone, and I don't remember myself driving in this place, the ticket also has no photo of me driving. Few questions:

1. In Eastern Europe where I'm from, the photo MUST clearly show you were driving at the time the ticket was issued. Can you legally argue in court you weren't driving at the time and what's the outcome? Who has the burden of proof in this case?

2. The ticket lo-res photo shows wrong number - shows 8 instead of 0, but perhaps this is a screw - it is indistinguishable. Can you argue that the number scan is wrong or would they have a full res photo?

3. The ticket doesn't show whether it was a fixed speed camera or mobile Garda unit. Are there fixed unattended speed cameras in Dublin and who has the burden of proof in court?

4. If you want to dispute this ticket, do you need to just wait for the court hearing or do something else?

Regards,
Vica

swarlb

Vica wrote: »

Hi, got a speeding ticket with the photo of the number, 82 in 60 zone, and I don't remember myself driving in this place, the ticket also has no photo of me driving. Few questions:

1. In Eastern Europe where I'm from, the photo MUST clearly show you were driving at the time the ticket was issued. Can you legally argue in court you weren't driving at the time and what's the outcome? Who has the burden of proof in this case?

2. The ticket lo-res photo shows wrong number - shows 8 instead of 0, but perhaps this is a screw - it is indistinguishable. Can you argue that the number scan is wrong or would they have a full res photo?

3. The ticket doesn't show whether it was a fixed speed camera or mobile Garda unit. Are there fixed unattended speed cameras in Dublin and who has the burden of proof in court?

4. If you want to dispute this ticket, do you need to just wait for the court hearing or do something else?

Regards,
Vica

Do you own the vehicle in question ?
If you were not driving it, somebody else certainly was. Is the photo of the same make and model of your own vehicle.
Unless you can prove someone else was driving it, or you were not in the vehicle at the time, or you were not in the area at the time....then you pretty much did it !!

maceocc2

If you go to court you'll need solid proof you where not driving, otherwise judge will rule against you, end of story.

If you remember who was driving you can fill in the form on the ticket you got to nominate the person responsible for the ticket, once you return the form your job is done, you will hear no more about it.

mickdw

Surely you can request the full photo.
This may well be a mix up with the zero / eight on the reg

Jesus.

mickdw wrote: »

This may well be a mix up with the zero / eight on the reg

It may well be. If the screw on the OP's plate is in the middle of the zero, it can sometimes appear like an eight until you get up close.

GTE

I am guessing the lo-res photo is so lo-res that you can't figure out if the car is definitely not yours?

Never seen one myself, so I don't know how much other than the number plate it would show.

slimjimmc

Vica wrote: »

Hi, got a speeding ticket with the photo of the number, 82 in 60 zone, and I don't remember myself driving in this place, the ticket also has no photo of me driving. Few questions:

1. In Eastern Europe where I'm from, the photo MUST clearly show you were driving at the time the ticket was issued. Can you legally argue in court you weren't driving at the time and what's the outcome? Who has the burden of proof in this case?

2. The ticket lo-res photo shows wrong number - shows 8 instead of 0, but perhaps this is a screw - it is indistinguishable. Can you argue that the number scan is wrong or would they have a full res photo?

3. The ticket doesn't show whether it was a fixed speed camera or mobile Garda unit. Are there fixed unattended speed cameras in Dublin and who has the burden of proof in court?

4. If you want to dispute this ticket, do you need to just wait for the court hearing or do something else?

Regards,
Vica

1 & 2. The photo you have is only part of the photo taken. There will be a full hi-res photo and you can request a copy from the Garda Fixed Charge Processing Office.
Note however that the deadline for paying the fine does not change even if you request the full photo or contest the penalty so do it ASAP.

3. It doesn't matter to the offence if it's fixed or mobile. There's a fixed one on the M50 near the M1 exit but I'm not sure if it's active.

4. If the photo shows your car but not you driving then you must inform the Garda Fixed Charge Processing Office who the real driver was, otherwise you are responsible.
If you can prove it's not your car then show your proof to the Garda Fixed Charge Processing Office.

Otherwise the only place you can dispute is in Court. If you genuinely believe you are innocent then feel free to go to Court but beware the penalties can be much higher if convicted in Court.

djimi

If the hi res photo isnt conclusive then you are going to need to dig up any proof you can that you were not at the scene of the offense at the time that it was committed. Go through your bank statements; see if you can find an ATM/debit card transaction or something that puts you far away from where the offense was committed.

A receipt for petrol from the far side of the country would be a big help!

gizmo555

Am I right in understanding that it's still not possible to compel a company to identify who was driving a vehicle registered to it where a fixed penalty offence is alleged?

As far as I can see in the Road Traffic Act 2010, Gardaí may prosecute the registered owner if he or she doesn't nominate another driver, but failing to nominate another driver isn't an offence in itself.

Of course, it's not possible for a company to have been, say, speeding, nor does it have a driving licence to have penalty points.

meathstevie

Have the Gardai no power to demand from the registered owner who was driving the vehicle, regaredless of the fact that a fixed penalty offence was committed or not ?

gizmo555

meathstevie wrote: »

Have the Gardai no power to demand from the registered owner who was driving the vehicle, regaredless of the fact that a fixed penalty offence was committed or not ?

Sorry, my mistake, reading a bit further I see failure to nominate the driver is an offence for which the registered owner can be fined up to €1,000. Depending on the circumstances, though, the company might be prepared to take the hit to avoid a director or employee getting points and perhaps a ban :pac:

Vica

slimjimmc wrote: »

If the photo shows your car but not you driving then you must inform the Garda Fixed Charge Processing Office who the real driver was, otherwise you are responsible.
If you can prove it's not your car then show your proof to the Garda Fixed Charge Processing Office.

Many thanks for replies. Two questions here:
- Why am I supposed to prove I'm innocent in court if there's a presumption of innocence? Should it not be the Garda who needs to prove that it was me indeed who committed the road offence? They might have a photo of the car, but that in itself does not prove I was in that car.

- What if I say in court I don't know who was using the car at the time, e.g. my wife and my father could have used it, but they couldn't say if they were or not?

djimi

gizmo555 wrote: »

Sorry, my mistake, reading a bit further I see failure to nominate the driver is an offence for which the registered owner can be fined up to €1,000. Depending on the circumstances, though, the company might be prepared to take the hit to avoid a director or employee getting points and perhaps a ban :pac:

Where a company vehicle is caught speeding, the main director (CEO?) does get the points unless someone is nominated, do they not? I could be wrong about that, but if Im not then its in the interest of the company to ensure that the correct person is nominated.

pippip

Vica wrote: »

Many thanks for replies. Two questions here:
- Why am I supposed to prove I'm innocent in court if there's a presumption of innocence? Should it not be the Garda who needs to prove that it was me indeed who committed the road offence? They might have a photo of the car, but that in itself does not prove I was in that car.

- What if I say in court I don't know who was using the car at the time, e.g. my wife and my father could have used it, but they couldn't say if they were or not?

As the registered owner, you have to legally name who was, if you cant, its you who takes the fine.

Is it definitely your car in the photo?

djimi

Vica wrote: »

Many thanks for replies. Two questions here:
- Why am I supposed to prove I'm innocent in court if there's a presumption of innocence? Should it not be the Garda who needs to prove that it was me indeed who committed the road offence? They might have a photo of the car, but that in itself does not prove I was in that car.

- What if I say in court I don't know who was using the car at the time, e.g. my wife and my father could have used it, but they couldn't say if they were or not?

The car is registered in your name; the presumption is that either you were driving it or you know who was (or failing that the car was reported stolen). "I dont know who might have been driving it at the time" wont cut it Im afraid; its up to you to find out, and if no one puts their hand up then you take the hit. I cant imagine the pool of potential drivers is so large as to cause you an issue in finding out the driver!

gizmo555

djimi wrote: »

Where a company vehicle is caught speeding, the main director (CEO?) does get the points unless someone is nominated, do they not? I could be wrong about that, but if Im not then its in the interest of the company to ensure that the correct person is nominated.

Don't know about that, but on the face of it, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Who's to say the CEO even has a driving licence?

Jabel

Vica wrote: »

Many thanks for replies. Two questions here:
- Why am I supposed to prove I'm innocent in court if there's a presumption of innocence? Should it not be the Garda who needs to prove that it was me indeed who committed the road offence? They might have a photo of the car, but that in itself does not prove I was in that car.

- What if I say in court I don't know who was using the car at the time, e.g. my wife and my father could have used it, but they couldn't say if they were or not?

Hi OP,
Don't take offence at this but it sounds to me as if you know it was your car (whether you remember it or not) and are looking for loopholes to avoid a fine.

blackwhite

gizmo555 wrote: »

Am I right in understanding that it's still not possible to compel a company to identify who was driving a vehicle registered to it where a fixed penalty offence is alleged?

As far as I can see in the Road Traffic Act 2010, Gardaí may prosecute the registered owner if he or she doesn't nominate another driver, but failing to nominate another driver isn't an offence in itself.

Of course, it's not possible for a company to have been, say, speeding, nor does it have a driving licence to have penalty points.

djimi wrote: »

Where a company vehicle is caught speeding, the main director (CEO?) does get the points unless someone is nominated, do they not? I could be wrong about that, but if Im not then its in the interest of the company to ensure that the correct person is nominated.

The Company Secretary is deemed to be the registered owner in the case of a company car.
If nobody is nominated then they are the person who is assessed with the fine and points.

galwaytt

gizmo555 wrote: »

Don't know about that, but on the face of it, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Who's to say the CEO even has a driving licence?

Exactly - even one of our last Ministers for Transport, Seamus Brennan let his lapse and re-sat his test........ http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/transport-minister-passes-driving-test-112358.html

I believe Bertie didn't have one either : http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/bertie-is-now-facing-fresh-controversy-over-driving-licence-26317774.html

pippip

galwaytt wrote: »

Exactly - even one of our last Ministers for Transport, Seamus Brennan let his lapse and re-sat his test........ http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/transport-minister-passes-driving-test-112358.html

I believe Bertie didn't have one either : http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/bertie-is-now-facing-fresh-controversy-over-driving-licence-26317774.html

Presumably if thats the case they just receive the fine.

Having said that it would not be a loophole given the complexity of being named the head of a company.

gizmo555

blackwhite wrote: »

The Company Secretary is deemed to be the registered owner in the case of a company car.
If nobody is nominated then they are the person who is assessed with the fine and points.

Never heard of this happening and can't see how it would be practical, especially in a large company with a big vehicle fleet. Have you a link or reference?

blackwhite

gizmo555 wrote: »

Never heard of this happening and can't see how it would be practical, especially in a large company with a big vehicle fleet. Have you a link or reference?

Under Irish law the position of CEO (or alternative) has no standing - its a management position, not a legal position. The CEO is usually a director of the company, but he/she has no different legal standing to any other director.

The officers of a company are the Company Secretary and the Directors.
In any case where criminal proceedings are being taken against the company, the CoSec is the officer who is nominated by default to stand in representation of the company.


I've (indirect) personal experience, in that where I work we've had our Co.Sec summonsed twice in the past 3 years.

FPNs are received addressed to the company secretary. One of his team then doles them out to whatever person is responsible for the car. If the person who was passed the FPN doesn't pay on time, then the summons is issued in the name of the Company Secretary.
The issue we had been having is that the section to nominate another driver was left for the actual driver to complete (as it could have been a wife/husband driving the company car).

gizmo555

blackwhite wrote: »

Under Irish law the position of CEO (or alternative) has no standing - its a management position, not a legal position. The CEO is usually a director of the company, but he/she has no different legal standing to any other director.

The officers of a company are the Company Secretary and the Directors.
In any case where criminal proceedings are being taken against the company, the CoSec is the officer who is nominated by default to stand in representation of the company.


I've (indirect) personal experience, in that where I work we've had our Co.Sec summonsed twice in the past 3 years.

FPNs are received addressed to the company secretary. One of his team then doles them out to whatever person is responsible for the car. If the person who was passed the FPN doesn't pay on time, then the summons is issued in the name of the Company Secretary.
The issue we had been having is that the section to nominate another driver was left for the actual driver to complete (as it could have been a wife/husband driving the company car).

Just because the summons is served on the company secretary on behalf of the company doesn't mean he or she could personally be given penalty points for an offence relating to a company vehicle.

blackwhite

gizmo555 wrote: »

Just because the summons is served on the company secretary on behalf of the company doesn't mean he or she could personally be given penalty points for an offence relating to a company vehicle.

Our Head of Legal sits across from me so I asked him there over a cup of coffee

He pointed me to this:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0044/sec0019.html#partiii-sec19

Basically it means that the vehicle, even if registered as owned by a company, will always have the name of one of the officers associated with the registration. And, this section allows for the officer to be deemed to have been using the vehicle unless someone else is identified.

gizmo555

blackwhite wrote: »

Our Head of Legal sits across from me so I asked him there over a cup of coffee

He pointed me to this:
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2004/en/act/pub/0044/sec0019.html#partiii-sec19

Basically it means that the vehicle, even if registered as owned by a company, will always have the name of one of the officers associated with the registration. And, this section allows for the officer to be deemed to have been using the vehicle unless someone else is identified.

OK, I see what he means. But it doesn't quite allow the officer concerned to be "deemed to have been using the vehicle unless someone else is identified", what the act (RTA 2002, Section 11) says is:

it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she [the company officer concerned] was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said alleged offence.

It does put the onus on the company officer to show that he or she didn't commit the offence, reversing the usual presumption of innocence. But it certainly doesn't allow the courts to "deem" someone to be guilty without hearing any evidence to the contrary.

In practice, I seriously doubt this provision is much used if it's used at all. I'd be interested in any examples you may know of.

djimi

gizmo555 wrote: »

It does put the onus on the company officer to show that he or she didn't commit the offence, reversing the usual presumption of innocence. But it certainly doesn't allow the courts to "deem" someone to be guilty without hearing any evidence to the contrary.

Thats precisely what it means, if my reading of it is correct.

blackwhite

gizmo555 wrote: »

OK, I see what he means. But it doesn't quite allow the officer concerned to be "deemed to have been using the vehicle unless someone else is identified", what the act (RTA 2002, Section 11) says is:

it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she [the company officer concerned] was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said alleged offence.

It does put the onus on the company officer to show that he or she didn't commit the offence, reversing the usual presumption of innocence. But it certainly doesn't allow the courts to "deem" someone to be guilty without hearing any evidence to the contrary.

In practice, I seriously doubt this provision is much used if it's used at all. I'd be interested in any examples you may know of.

But it certainly doesn't allow the courts to "deem" someone to be guilty without hearing any evidence to the contrary.

If no evidence to the contrary is presented then that's exactly what will happen.

Any speed-camera detections which end up in court without an identified driver (whether a company car or a privately owned car), work on this basis:
- evidence that the vehicle was photgraphed speeding is presented. This will nearly always be accepted because the law is written in such a way that it assumes that the camera was functioning correctly, unless it can be proved otherwise.
- the registered keeper (i.e. the owner in the case of a privately owned car; the nominated company officer in the case of a company car) is deemed to have been responsible for the offence unless they can provide evidence otherwise.

It's one of the few instances in Irish law (they mainly seem to appear in the RTAs) where the burden of proof is reduced by the legislation. Once the prosecution proves that an offence occurred (and the proof "hurdle" is relatively low in this case) then the onus shifts to the accused to prove that somebody else did it.

gizmo555

blackwhite wrote: »

But it certainly doesn't allow the courts to "deem" someone to be guilty without hearing any evidence to the contrary.

Maybe I was unclear. If I can rephrase: "it certainly doesn't allow the courts to 'deem' someone to be guilty without affording the accused an opportunity to offer evidence to the contrary".

In practice, how often are company secretaries or other company officers convicted of road traffic offences and given penalty points because the company didn't identify the driver of the vehicle?

Personally, as I said, I've never heard of it happening and would be very interested in any examples you may know of.

blackwhite

gizmo555 wrote: »

Maybe I was unclear. If I can rephrase: "it certainly doesn't allow the courts to 'deem' someone to be guilty without affording the accused an opportunity to offer evidence to the contrary".

In practice, how often are company secretaries or other company officers convicted of road traffic offences and given penalty points because the company didn't identify the driver of the vehicle?

Personally, as I said, I've never heard of it happening and would be very interested in any examples you may know of.

In the two cases I'm aware of the driver was identified by the company in Court, and the reasons for the issue arising were explained and accepted by the court.

In practice, I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough not to identify the driver - nobody except you is arguing that they would be.

The reason that they wouldn't be stupid enough to refuse is the legislation quoted above, which means that they would be convicted themselves if they refuse to identify the driver (which I imagine is the real purpose of the legislation).

Anyway - below were the two posts I was responding to - and both have been disproved. The legislation is there to convict a nominated officer of the company if they refuse to identify the driver.

gizmo555 wrote: »

Am I right in understanding that it's still not possible to compel a company to identify who was driving a vehicle registered to it where a fixed penalty offence is alleged?

As far as I can see in the Road Traffic Act 2010, Gardaí may prosecute the registered owner if he or she doesn't nominate another driver, but failing to nominate another driver isn't an offence in itself.

Of course, it's not possible for a company to have been, say, speeding, nor does it have a driving licence to have penalty points.

gizmo555 wrote: »

Just because the summons is served on the company secretary on behalf of the company doesn't mean he or she could personally be given penalty points for an offence relating to a company vehicle.

djimi

Out of curiosity, what happens if a company secretary nominates a driver for points, and the driver turns around and says that they werent the ones driving? Does the onus then pass to the driver to prove their innocence, or does the secretary have to prove that the driver was the one driving at the time? And if so, to what level must they prove that the driver was driving (assuming there isnt a sign out/in sheet for vehicles or something to that effect)?

keithclancy

djimi wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what happens if a company secretary nominates a driver for points, and the driver turns around and says that they werent the ones driving? Does the onus then pass to the driver to prove their innocence, or does the secretary have to prove that the driver was the one driving at the time? And if so, to what level must they prove that the driver was driving (assuming there isnt a sign out/in sheet for vehicles or something to that effect)?

I think they would just fire you.

blackwhite

djimi wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what happens if a company secretary nominates a driver for points, and the driver turns around and says that they werent the ones driving? Does the onus then pass to the driver to prove their innocence, or does the secretary have to prove that the driver was the one driving at the time? And if so, to what level must they prove that the driver was driving (assuming there isnt a sign out/in sheet for vehicles or something to that effect)?

God only knows!

I'd imagine they'd ask for the CoSec to testify in court that the nominated person was in possession of the vehicle.
It'd then be up to the person to testify otherwise.

TBH, if your employer testifies, under oath, that you were in possession of, and responsible for, the car, would you really be willing to give a defence of "it wasn't me and I don't know who was driving it"? Seems like a one-way ticket to 1) a conviction and 2) potential disciplinary problems from work.

djimi

Well Im kinda working off the assumption that the person wasnt actually driving! I suppose my question was what is to stop the secretary nominating someone just to make their own problem go away (where for instance they dont know who was driving)?

keithclancy

djimi wrote: »

Well Im kinda working off the assumption that the person wasnt actually driving! I suppose my question was what is to stop the secretary nominating someone just to make their own problem go away (where for instance they dont know who was driving)?

I think the employer would then just fire them.

djimi

keithclancy wrote: »

I think the employer would then just fire them.

Not much use to the poor driver who is landed with a fine and points for an offense that they didnt commit though?

biko

The driver and the secretary go to the Thunderdome.

blackwhite

djimi wrote: »

Well Im kinda working off the assumption that the person wasnt actually driving! I suppose my question was what is to stop the secretary nominating someone just to make their own problem go away (where for instance they dont know who was driving)?

If they went down that road then I'd imagine it'd eventually end up as a day in court with the word of the CoSec against the word of the employee.

Given that they'd have no way of knowing what proof the employ may have that they weren't driving I'm not sure that the CoSec would be willing to perjure themselves. A conviction for perjury would most likely result in an action from the Director of Corporate Enforcement and in the CoSec being disqualified from being legally permitted to serve as an officer of a company, meaning that they'd be out of a job.
That's one hell of a risk for the CoSec to take, all to avoid the hassle of finding out who was actually driving.

corktina

djimi wrote: »

Not much use to the poor driver who is landed with a fine and points for an offense that they didnt commit though?

It's an interesting point. Can a conviction be made on a the evidence of someone with a vested in terest in blaming someone (anyone) else?

blackwhite

corktina wrote: »

It's an interesting point. Can a conviction be made on a the evidence of someone with a vested in terest in blaming someone (anyone) else?

If that person is willing to commit perjury, and the accused fails to present any evidence to contradict them, then yes!

gizmo555

blackwhite wrote: »

In practice, I can't imagine anyone being stupid enough not to identify the driver - nobody except you is arguing that they would be.

What if they genuinely don't know? What if I'm the company secretary summoned to court, and I'm able to prove beyond doubt I was on holiday in Malta when the speeding offence occurred on the Mullingar bypass, but I swear on oath that I don't know who was driving the car?

The court can't convict me of speeding in the face of irrefutable proof of my innocence ("it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she [the company officer concerned] was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said alleged offence.")

blackwhite

gizmo555 wrote: »

What if they genuinely don't know? What if I'm the company secretary summoned to court, and I'm able to prove beyond doubt I was on holiday in Malta when the speeding offence occurred on the Mullingar bypass, but I swear on oath that I don't know who was driving the car?

The court can't convict me of speeding in the face of irrefutable proof of my innocence ("it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown that he or she [the company officer concerned] was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the said alleged offence.")

Then there'd be a very strong argument that you're either in dereliction of your fiduciary duties as company secretary, or that you're just refusing to identify the driver. A judge would more likely deem it to be the second option, and could potentially find you in contempt and/or apply the penalties which are prescribed for failing to identify the driver.

The CoSec (or the nominated officer) is legally responsible for the vehicle, and for having some process in place to control who has access to the vehicle.
I severely doubt you'd find a company where nobody would be able to ascertain who'd been in possession of one of the companies €20k+ value assets at a given time.


Say it's your personal car that's recorded speeding in Mullingar, and yet you have proof that you were in Malta. Do you think a judge is going to accept that you have no idea who was driving your car?
Legally, there is no difference in such a scenario between it being company-owned or privately owned.

gizmo555

blackwhite wrote: »

Then there'd be a very strong argument that you're either in dereliction of your fiduciary duties as company secretary, or that you're just refusing to identify the driver. A judge would more likely deem it to be the second option, and could potentially find you in contempt and/or apply the penalties which are prescribed for failing to identify the driver.

The CoSec (or the nominated officer) is legally responsible for the vehicle, and for having some process in place to control who has access to the vehicle.
I severely doubt you'd find a company where nobody would be able to ascertain who'd been in possession of one of the companies €20k+ value assets at a given time.

You're into the realms of pure speculation now, not to mention that the person who would be deemed to be the driver is not necessarily the company secretary. The part of the 2004 Act you linked doesn't actually mention company secretaries at all.

blackwhite wrote: »

Say it's your personal car that's recorded speeding in Mullingar, and yet you have proof that you were in Malta. Do you think a judge is going to accept that you have no idea who was driving your car?

I can easily imagine a situation where I have a fair idea but cannot state with certainty.

blackwhite

gizmo555 wrote: »

You're into the realms of pure speculation now

What exactly would you describe most of your own "hypothetical" situations as on this thread then?? (other than trying to distract from some claims you made on the first page which have been repeatedly shown to be incorrect)

gizmo555 wrote: »

not to mention that the person who would be deemed to be the driver is not necessarily the company secretary. The part of the 2004 Act you linked doesn't actually mention company secretaries at all.

If you want to be as pedantic as possible to distract from the false claims you previously made then go ahead.

It's either the CoSec or another nominated officer. The Act talks about " the individual who applied for registration."
Legally speaking, the only people who can apply for anything in the name of a company are the legal officers of the company - i.e. the Directors and the CoSec - or somebody authorised by the board by way of resolution.
In practice, an administrator/accountant or somebody else employed by the company will actually complete the documentation, but it will need to be in the name of/signed off by one of the officers, most commonly the CoSec.

The 2004 Act then states that the person who registers the vehicle is the one who is deemed to have been driving - i.e. it will usually be the CoSec, or in some cases a Director.

gizmo555 wrote: »

I can easily imagine a situation where I have a fair idea but cannot state with certainty.

Are you really trying to say that you'd go off on holidays and leave your car for the general use of multiple people, without someone being responsible for it? And you'd have know way of identifying who used it whilst committing an offence?
Once you have a "fair idea" you'd be expected to identify whoever you think it was and then let the gardaí investigate them.