Understanding a DC Judgement

Maidhci

A family friend was recently convicted of careless driving in the District Court and fined. The fine was quite severe and when coupled with the 5 penalty points that are automatically applied, he is considering his options, but time is running out on account of the 14 day window to appeal etc. etc.

Basically, the case involved a two car collision on a country road, my friend was the sole occupant of his car and the other car was occupied by a family. There were no independent witnesses at the scene. Both drivers were issued with a summons for careless driving as a result. The driver of the other car was uninsured, and his provisional licence had expired quite some time ago.

At the Court Hearing, the only witness to appear was the partner of the driver of the other car. The Garda who was at the scene on the day of the accident was not present and therefore the charges for driving without insurance and licence was thrown out against the other party. However, the charge for careless driving on both parties was proceeded with and my friend was found to have been at fault.

I am wondering is there something here that merits a re-examination of the case? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

NUTLEY BOY

Maidhci wrote: »

A family friend was recently convicted of careless driving in the District Court and fined. The fine was quite severe and when coupled with the 5 penalty points that are automatically applied, he is considering his options, but time is running out on account of the 14 day window to appeal etc. etc.

Basically, the case involved a two car collision on a country road, my friend was the sole occupant of his car and the other car was occupied by a family. There were no independent witnesses at the scene. Both drivers were issued with a summons for careless driving as a result. The driver of the other car was uninsured, and his provisional licence had expired quite some time ago.

At the Court Hearing, the only witness to appear was the partner of the driver of the other car. The Garda who was at the scene on the day of the accident was not present and therefore the charges for driving without insurance and licence was thrown out against the other party. However, the charge for careless driving on both parties was proceeded with and my friend was found to have been at fault.

I am wondering is there something here that merits a re-examination of the case? Any help will be greatly appreciated.

If he feels that the decision is very wrong he can appeal as of right. The appeal will be dealt with in the Circuit Court by a CC judge. There is a time limit within which to lodge an appeal. This is best done by consulting a solicitor promptly.

Maidhci

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

If he feels that the decision is very wrong he can appeal as of right. The appeal will be dealt with in the Circuit Court by a CC judge. There is a time limit within which to lodge an appeal. This is best done by consulting a solicitor promptly.

Thanks for the response Nutley Boy, although it is stating the obvious! Obviously, he feels that the decision was very wrong but given his limited resources, an appeal to the Circuit Court is something that he needs to consider very very carefully. I was hoping for some feedback that might help in reaching a decision, not on stating the obvious.

Pro Hoc Vice

Maidhci wrote: »

Thanks for the response Nutley Boy, although it is stating the obvious! Obviously, he feels that the decision was very wrong but given his limited resources, an appeal to the Circuit Court is something that he needs to consider very very carefully. I was hoping for some feedback that might help in reaching a decision, not on stating the obvious.

Unless someone was in court and heard the evidence and could say ya that was enough or not enough to convict then no one can give your friend any advice.

Much of your friends issues may not be fixed by appeal, the other party will not be found guilty of the charges that are struck out. In fact having no insurance and licence while serious crimes have little to do with what your friend was accused of. The other driver being uninsured is not a defence to a careless driving charge, a judge can Aldo easily find 2 people guilty of careless driving if in fact both did drive badly.

All that matters is the evidence presented against your friend and did that amount to careless driving.

I can't understand why some charges struck out and not others due to Garda non availability, I would (maybe incorrectly) assumed the one Garda was investigating the matter. I would have thought the Garda was a vital witness in relation to location of cars etc. And anything said at the scene.

Maidhci

infosys wrote: »

Unless someone was in court and heard the evidence and could say ya that was enough or not enough to convict then no one can give your friend any advice.

Much of your friends issues may not be fixed by appeal, the other party will not be found guilty of the charges that are struck out. In fact having no insurance and licence while serious crimes have little to do with what your friend was accused of. The other driver being uninsured is not a defence to a careless driving charge, a judge can Aldo easily find 2 people guilty of careless driving if in fact both did drive badly.

All that matters is the evidence presented against your friend and did that amount to careless driving.

I can't understand why some charges struck out and not others due to Garda non availability, I would (maybe incorrectly) assumed the one Garda was investigating the matter. I would have thought the Garda was a vital witness in relation to location of cars etc. And anything said at the scene.

Thanks for the post infosys - I am fully aware that the non-charges against the other party are totally irrelevant and cannot be re-instated, however, the main reason for my post was my lack of understanding as to how some charges were proceeded with while others were struck out, given that the Garda who witnessed the position of the cars on the day of the accident, was not present in Court. Obviously, my friend's concern relates only to his own conviction, given the financial implications, penalty points and the future impact on insurance premia. Additionally, he also feels that his Insurance Company's ability to fight a possible injuries claim will be greatly diminished by the conviction.

Pro Hoc Vice

Maidhci wrote: »

Thanks for the post infosys - I am fully aware that the non-charges against the other party are totally irrelevant and cannot be re-instated, however, the main reason for my post was my lack of understanding as to how some charges were proceeded with while others were struck out, given that the Garda who witnessed the position of the cars on the day of the accident, was not present in Court. Obviously, my friend's concern relates only to his own conviction, given the financial implications, penalty points and the future impact on insurance premia. Additionally, he also feels that his Insurance Company's ability to fight a possible injuries claim will be greatly diminished by the conviction.

As I said I too wondered how the case went on with out Garda. For all the reasons you mention it seems like a valid case to appeal. What does your friends solicitor say?

No Pants

Maidhci wrote: »

The Garda who was at the scene on the day of the accident was not present and therefore the charges for driving without insurance and licence was thrown out against the other party.

Question to the forum; why would a Guard be needed for these charges to proceed? Having a valid driving licence and having insurance are binary conditions.

Maidhci

infosys wrote: »

As I said I too wondered how the case went on with out Garda. For all the reasons you mention it seems like a valid case to appeal. What does your friends solicitor say?

Thanks again infosys - I think he has decided not to ask his solicitor anything more about this case as he is rightly disgusted with the outcome and the manner in which it was dealt with in Court. Obviously, without being present in Court and given that a person in such circumstances is bound to be somewhat biased, but as I understand it, his solicitor did not raise any issues in Court nor did he cross-examine, in any great detail, the other party. Especially, given that the only witness was a connected party, my friend considers that he should have been vigorously cross-examined by his solicitor.

Pro Hoc Vice

No Pants wrote: »

Question to the forum; why would a Guard be needed for these charges to proceed? Having a valid driving licence and having insurance are binary conditions.

To give the evidence a demand was made, to give the evidence that the documents not produced.

Pro Hoc Vice

Maidhci wrote: »

Thanks again infosys - I think he has decided not to ask his solicitor anything more about this case as he is rightly disgusted with the outcome and the manner in which it was dealt with in Court. Obviously, without being present in Court and given that a person in such circumstances is bound to be somewhat biased, but as I understand it, his solicitor did not raise any issues in Court nor did he cross-examine, in any great detail, the other party. Especially, given that the only witness was a connected party, my friend considers that he should have been vigorously cross-examined by his solicitor.

Knowing the judge is important, also knowing when to use ammunition, I have often not used my best argument in the DC knowing the judge and how the Circuit judge will react. Also some arguments are once only in other words they can be fixed. If you know DC will more than likely convict hold in reserve for the real show in circuit.

Also legal team have to make decisions on the spot, do insist on Garda or do I let it run and less evidence so better chance.

Your friend has 3 options,

1 do nothing
2 appeal with same solicitor
3 appeal change solicitor and get barrister

No Pants

infosys wrote: »

To give the evidence a demand was made, to give the evidence that the documents not produced.

Is that not documented and then provided to the DPP before the prosecution goes ahead? Is such documentation not used to decide that a prosecution will even happen?

Pro Hoc Vice

No Pants wrote: »

Is that not documented and then provided to the DPP before the prosecution goes ahead? Is such documentation not used to decide that a prosecution will even happen?

Yes but the Garda must give the verbal evidence in court, saying 1 the person was using the car in a public place, 2 a demand was made 3 no documents produced. A statement is not evidence unless the accused agrees that it may be tendered. Garda has to get into the box and give the evidence under oath.

BTW while in the district court it is usually in the name of the DPP the inspector runs the case not a solicitor.

Maidhci

infosys wrote: »

Yes but the Garda must give the verbal evidence in court, saying 1 the person was using the car in a public place, 2 a demand was made 3 no documents produced. A statement is not evidence unless the accused agrees that it may be tendered. Garda has to get into the box and give the evidence under oath.

BTW while in the district court it is usually in the name of the DPP the inspector runs the case not a solicitor.

This is obviously the reason why the case(s) for driving without a licence and insurance against the other party could not be proceeded with. Similarly, I would have thought that the Garda in question would be obliged to tell the Court that he witnessed the scene of the accident etc. etc. and proffer an opinion as to where the responsibility for the collision rested? It is surprising that a Garda could decide not to appear in Court in such circumstances, given also that the children who were injured in the collision were not wearing child restraint seats or if unable to attend that the State would apply for an adjournment. I would have thought that these were important matters.

In the event that he does appeal, he will most certainly do so with another solicitor. As stated earlier, he has to do a cost-benefit analysis based on the probability of the possible outcome.

No Pants

infosys wrote: »

Yes but the Garda must give the verbal evidence in court, saying 1 the person was using the car in a public place, 2 a demand was made 3 no documents produced. A statement is not evidence unless the accused agrees that it may be tendered. Garda has to get into the box and give the evidence under oath.

BTW while in the district court it is usually in the name of the DPP the inspector runs the case not a solicitor.

So how were the other charges able to go ahead without the guard?

Pro Hoc Vice

No Pants wrote: »

So how were the other charges able to go ahead without the guard?

As I said earlier in the thread "I can't understand why some charges struck out and not others due to Garda non availability," and "As I said I too wondered how the case went on with out Garda." I too am asking that question, but if the Garda did not witness the crash and if that Garda had no part in the investigation of the crash itself then he would have no evidence to give. It could be 2 guards turned up one made the demands for documents, the other investigated the crash. But the case should not have went on unless evidence was presented.

There was evidence of the crash given by I assume 3 people 1 the OP's friend, 2 the driver of other car 3 the other driver's partner. That may have been the only evidence available but enough for a DJ to make a decision.

Funny thing it may have been if none of the civilians gave statements the whole case would have gone away.

FreudianSlippers

This clearly is not a thread about "understanding" a DC judgment and more a "should I appeal"... Sorry, "should my 'friend' appeal" - your "friend" needs to see a solicitor ASAP and discuss the case in detail. If they feel their solicitor was somehow not up to the task in the DC, they should seek out alternative legal advice, just not here.

Maidhci

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This clearly is not a thread about "understanding" a DC judgment and more a "should I appeal"... Sorry, "should my 'friend' appeal" - your "friend" needs to see a solicitor ASAP and discuss the case in detail. If they feel their solicitor was somehow not up to the task in the DC, they should seek out alternative legal advice, just not here.

I regret that this interpretation has been drawn from my posting. Clearly, this was not my intention. I posted a question in good faith, meaning exactly what it stated, nothing more,nothing less. The insinuation that the post related to 'me' as opposed to my 'friend' is also regrettable. As is obvious from my posts, I was fully aware that an appeal could be made. Also, as stated in my posts, I needed to gain an understanding as to how certain aspects of a case could be heard while other aspects of the same case were struck out. This question was very clearly and helpfully answered by infosys, which I thanked in my last post which was intended by me as the final post on this subject.

I regret that an incorrect construction was put on my post. I am fully aware of the forum rules and would not circumvent these in any way.