Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Penalty Points Question

  • 10-04-2014 9:56am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭


    The car my wife normally drives was caught speeding about two months ago, and a fixed penalty notice was dispatched to our home address. I'm the registered person on the car, so it was addressed to me, and I was asked to pay the fine and submit my license number for 2 points. Neither I or my wife have ever had any points on our license, so I decided to try and find out who was driving the car at that place and at that time, but neither of us could be sure who it was....

    I rang the penalty points 'line' and spoke to a Garda, and explained the situation, and asked if they had a picture of the car at the time, which they did, but only of the back of the car. I asked him what we should do in this particular situation, and his response was "If I was you I'd just take the points", and I'm not really happy with that answer. We are both insured to drive the car, so there is no issue there, but my question is, am I incriminating myself by accepting these points/fine when I cannot be sure it was me, and has anybody experience of a similar situation coming up in court?


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Sadderday


    Sounds like someone was trying to avoid the paperwork. I think your wife needs to ring and accept responsibility for it, requesting the points to be transferred to her own licence.

    This happened a lad in work, he was driving his mums car and she got the letter... he rang and got it sorted out


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    If the owner can not say for certainty that he was not driving then as there is a legal presumption he was driving he can not rebut that and so is guilty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Sadderday wrote: »
    Sounds like someone was trying to avoid the paperwork. I think your wife needs to ring and accept responsibility for it, requesting the points to be transferred to her own licence.

    This happened a lad in work, he was driving his mums car and she got the letter... he rang and got it sorted out

    Read the OP again neither he nor his wife can be sure who was driving.

    "but neither of us could be sure who it was...."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    If the owner can not say for certainty that he was not driving then as there is a legal presumption he was driving he can not rebut that and so is guilty.

    Thanks, so basically I have no choice but to accept the points on my license? Is that the legal position?

    I also see that you mention the owner. The registration document specifically states that the registered person does not signify the owner of the vehicle.

    Let me be clear, we have no issue with the speeding fine per-se, we genuinely have no idea who was driving, and there is no question of anybody avoiding anything.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Sadderday


    Read the OP again neither he nor his wife can be sure who was driving.

    "but neither of us could be sure who it was...."


    Oh, sorry - well one of them has a bite the bullet anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,258 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    Let me be clear, we have no issue with the speeding fine per-se, we genuinely have no idea who was driving, and there is no question of anybody avoiding anything.

    Either....
    1. You were driving the car.
    2. She was driving the car.
    3. Somebody else was driving the car.
    4. Somebody cloned your reg plates.

    The odds are short on it being 1 or 2.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    Either....
    1. You were driving the car.
    2. She was driving the car.
    3. Somebody else was driving the car.
    4. Somebody cloned your reg plates.

    The odds are short on it being 1 or 2.

    Ok. I think you're missing the point:

    I'm accepting it was 1 or 2.

    Neither of us are aware if it was definitely 1 or definitely 2.

    I cannot get any evidence or proof to say whether it was 1 or 2.

    Bringing option 3&4 into the conversation is just muddying the waters, and is not part of what I'm asking.

    Thanks.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    If the owner can not say for certainty that he was not driving then as there is a legal presumption he was driving he can not rebut that and so is guilty.

    Where does this legal presumption he was driving come from?
    Should it not work the other way around, that accusing party should prove he was driving?
    Does presimption of innocence not work here?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    "but my question is, am I incriminating myself by accepting these points/fine when I cannot be sure it was me"

    >> OK so the answer to this question is 'yes'. By admitting the crime you are incriminating yourself.

    "has anybody experience of a similar situation coming up in court? "

    >> Yes. People claim all sorts of things in court to get out of points e.g. "I lent the car to a guy I met in the snooker hall, can't remember his name." etc. But judges look poorly on these sorts of claim, because they are pretty much all bogus. You are ADMITTING that either you or your wife drove the car in that instance. The judge will ask you 'which is more likely?' or 'who drives more?' and boom, that's it.


    My advice to you is to let whichever of you who is least likely to speed again, take the points. This reduces the risk of the points adversely impacting your future.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    CiniO wrote: »
    Where does this legal presumption he was driving come from?

    Because he has admitted it is 100% either him or his wife.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    CiniO wrote: »
    Where does this legal presumption he was driving come from?
    Should it not work the other way around, that accusing party should prove he was driving?
    Does presimption of innocence not work here?

    I suppose that's exactly what I'm asking. And yes, I 100% accept that it was either me or my wife driving.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,258 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    Ok. I think you're missing the point:

    I'm accepting it was 1 or 2.

    Neither of us are aware if it was definitely 1 or definitely 2.

    I cannot get any evidence or proof to say whether it was 1 or 2.

    Bringing option 3&4 into the conversation is just muddying the waters, and is not part of what I'm asking.

    Thanks.

    I am aware of that; sorry if it came out wrong. The thing is this, if you can't establish that it wasn't you who was driving then it is the registered owner of the car who carries the can. It's an awkward one.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    3DataModem wrote: »
    Because he has admitted it is 100% either him or his wife.

    Sorry but it doesn't make sense to me.
    It was said that there is automatic presumption he (registered owner) was driving. I asked how does it work out with presumption of innocence?
    Fact what he is admitting is completely irrelevant to those presumptions


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    I am aware of that; sorry if it came out wrong. The thing is this, if you can't establish that it wasn't you who was driving then it is the registered owner of the car who carries the can. It's an awkward one.

    Are there any legal grounds for it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    I am aware of that; sorry if it came out wrong. The thing is this, if you can't establish that it wasn't you who was driving then it is the registered owner of the car who carries the can. It's an awkward one.

    No worries, and thanks for the answer.

    I just want to be 100% sure that it's 'me' who has to take them. It's no biggie to be honest, but it did put some questions into my head, and I think, it also illustrates some issues with the legislation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    From RSA.ie

    "Where an offence is detected by camera, the fixed-charge notice will be sent to the registered owner. The Road Traffic Act provides that unless another person is identified as the driver it will be assumed that the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the alleged offence."

    So that's that. Either the owner says who was driving, or the owner is assumed to be driving.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    "Where an offence is detected by camera, the fixed-charge notice will be sent to the registered owner. The Road Traffic Act provides that unless another person is identified as the driver it will be assumed that the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the alleged offence."

    But it does not allow for a situation where the owner is unable to identify who was driving. Or does it?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    But it does not allow for a situation where the owner is unable to identify who was driving. Or does it?

    Yes it does. The RTA states that the owner is obliged by law to identify who was driving.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driving_offences/driving_offences.html

    "If the registered owner was not the driver he/she is still obliged by law to notify the Gardaí of who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the offence."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    3DataModem wrote: »
    From RSA.ie

    "Where an offence is detected by camera, the fixed-charge notice will be sent to the registered owner. The Road Traffic Act provides that unless another person is identified as the driver it will be assumed that the registered owner was driving the vehicle at the time of the occurrence of the alleged offence."

    So that's that. Either the owner says who was driving, or the owner is assumed to be driving.

    Thanks.
    Does anyone have a link to that road traffic act?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,258 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    CiniO wrote: »
    Thanks.
    Does anyone have a link to that road traffic act?

    Ultimately the relevant act depends on the offence in question that you are accused of but the piece does refer to and provide a link for the 2006 Road Traffic Act.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    3DataModem wrote: »
    Yes it does. The RTA states that the owner is obliged by law to identify who was driving.

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/travel_and_recreation/motoring_1/driving_offences/driving_offences.html

    "If the registered owner was not the driver he/she is still obliged by law to notify the Gardaí of who the driver of the vehicle was at the time of the offence."

    Ok, thanks.

    Assume I go to court.

    I'm told that under the law I'm obliged to identify who was driving.

    I respond that I cannot 100% say if it was me or my wife.

    What happens? It's not that I'm refusing. I surely cannot be compelled to say something I'm not sure of? I understand that there would be a determination, but based on what? Surely this has come up before?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    CiniO wrote: »
    Thanks.
    Does anyone have a link to that road traffic act?

    S.103 of the RTA 1961, as amended. The Road Traffic Acts are a tangled mess of amendments.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0012/sec0011.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Sadderday


    sorry if this sounds dumb but assuming they can give you the date and time that the camera took the pic of the speeding car..... can't yas not sit down together and backtrack through calendars and bank statements...to see what was going on at the time to figure out which one of yas was driving ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,077 ✭✭✭3DataModem


    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    Ok, thanks.

    Assume I go to court.

    I'm told that under the law I'm obliged to identify who was driving.

    I respond that I cannot 100% say if it was me or my wife.

    What happens? It's not that I'm refusing. I surely cannot be compelled to say something I'm not sure of? I understand that there would be a determination, but based on what? Surely this has come up before?

    Possible contempt of court plus the driving offence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    I surely cannot be compelled to say something I'm not sure of? I understand that there would be a determination, but based on what? Surely this has come up before?
    If you cannot be sure of who was driving, then the responsibility falls on you and you take the points.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Sadderday


    No Pants wrote: »
    If you cannot be sure of who was driving, then the responsibility falls on you and you take the points.


    I think it would be a little selfish to assume you can waste the police/courts time by dragging it out..

    You might just want to make the decision on who will accpt responsibility instead of costing the state money by bringing up this dispute

    Sorry to be blunt, seems like it would save you hassle too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Sadderday wrote: »
    I think it would be a little selfish to assume you can waste the police/courts time by dragging it out..

    You might just want to make the decision on who will accpt responsibility instead of costing the state money by bringing up this dispute

    Sorry to be blunt, seems like it would save you hassle too.
    If it goes to court, doesn't the fine and points increase?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,229 ✭✭✭Sadderday


    No Pants wrote: »
    If it goes to court, doesn't the fine and points increase?


    I dont know, I guess if thats the case fair enough but is it worth the hassle??? husband and wife... one of you are responsible, if you cant figure out who, someone take the points, split the fine and work things out... I dont get it, married couple should be able to work things out..

    I cant understand why you bring it to court if it were going to cost you more anyway.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    No Pants wrote: »
    If it goes to court, doesn't the fine and points increase?

    Yep


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Surely the first point of proof in any offence is identity?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Yep
    That's what I thought.

    OP, you haven't discovered a magical loophole. If you go to court, either you or your wife will be leaving with a larger fine and more points than if you agree something between you now. Check the date on the paperwork you've received; with the time taken to deliver it, you may not have much time left to settle this before your choice regarding court is removed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    CiniO wrote: »
    Where does this legal presumption he was driving come from?
    Should it not work the other way around, that accusing party should prove he was driving?
    Does presimption of innocence not work here?

    The presumption can be shifted in certain cases another example is drunk in charge with the intention to drive. The intention to drive is presumed until the contrary is shown. There is a case on the presumption in speeding but at the moment can't remember it off hand.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    No Pants wrote: »
    That's what I thought.

    OP, you haven't discovered a magical loophole. If you go to court, either you or your wife will be leaving with a larger fine and more points than if you agree something between you now. Check the date on the paperwork you've received; with the time taken to deliver it, you may not have much time left to settle this before your choice regarding court is removed.
    it's not about finding a loophole. And the points and fine do not increase automatically, as there is discretion allowed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    it's not about finding a loophole. And the points and fine do not increase automatically, as there is discretion allowed.

    The points double on conviction in court and the minimum fine I think is increased.

    http://www.rsa.ie/Documents/Licensed%20Drivers/Penalty%20Points%20Chart1.pdf

    See speeding 2 points goes to 4 in court and fine goes to 120.

    I think this is the most uptodate law,

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0038.html

    relevant bit

    "(a) in a prosecution of that owner for the alleged offence, which is not a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, or"

    There is a similar provision for penalty points.

    THE ECHR has upheld such a law in the UK O'HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM,


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 44 toughapple


    The registered owner of a car is in a position to know who was driving it at any time. He can take a note of who he gives the keys to and when he gets them back. The reason the registered owner has to identify the driver, if he was not the driver himself, is to ease the burden of proof on the prosecution. The prosecution only have to prove that a car was speeding and who the registered owner was. After that the court will ask the registered owner to identify the driver and if he wont or can't the court will draw appropriate inferences.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    toughapple wrote: »
    The registered owner of a car is in a position to know who was driving it at any time. He can take a note of who he gives the keys to and when he gets them back. The reason the registered owner has to identify the driver, if he was not the driver himself, is to ease the burden of proof on the prosecution. The prosecution only have to prove that a car was speeding and who the registered owner was. After that the court will ask the registered owner to identify the driver and if he wont or can't the court will draw appropriate inferences.

    So if the car kills someone in the same scenario do we imprison the registered owner?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Zambia wrote: »
    So if the car kills someone in the same scenario do we imprison the registered owner?

    No, the court have only upheld such presumptions or removal of right to silence in minor criminal matters. The HC or Supreme Court would not allow a serious criminal charge to be proved on an presumption, it would be in breach of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Sadderday wrote: »
    I think it would be a little selfish to assume you can waste the police/courts time by dragging it out..

    You might just want to make the decision on who will accpt responsibility instead of costing the state money by bringing up this dispute

    Sorry to be blunt, seems like it would save you hassle too.

    See, but OP can't really do it.
    He doesn't know who was driving.
    If he states that it was him, while he doesn't know it, he is committing an offence:
    (17) A person who, pursuant to subsection (4) of this section, gives or sends to a member of the Garda Síochána or a traffic warden information (whether or not contained in a document) that is, to his or her knowledge, false or misleading shall be guilty of an offence.
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2002/en/act/pub/0012/sec0011.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,069 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    toughapple wrote: »
    The registered owner of a car is in a position to know who was driving it at any time. He can take a note of who he gives the keys to and when he gets them back. The reason the registered owner has to identify the driver, if he was not the driver himself, is to ease the burden of proof on the prosecution. The prosecution only have to prove that a car was speeding and who the registered owner was. After that the court will ask the registered owner to identify the driver and if he wont or can't the court will draw appropriate inferences.


    OK.
    All seems to be clear now with quoted laws. I'm happy I finally undestood this system.
    Except one thing which I'm still not sure.

    Assume Car registered owner named X, lent his car to Y, and Y while driving it got caught speeding by speed camera.
    X receives notice, and he gives Y details. All good so far.

    But what happens if Y refuses to accept liability, or even worse, is not reachable (contactable) - changed address, moved abroad, etc...

    What happens then?

    X fulfilled his duty, and gave correct information in relation to who was driving the vehicle. Is he in the clear now, or can he still be charged for offence he didn't commit, just because Y is trying to avoid liability?


  • Advertisement
  • Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,774 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    CiniO wrote: »
    OK.
    All seems to be clear now with quoted laws. I'm happy I finally undestood this system.
    Except one thing which I'm still not sure.

    Assume Car registered owner named X, lent his car to Y, and Y while driving it got caught speeding by speed camera.
    X receives notice, and he gives Y details. All good so far.

    But what happens if Y refuses to accept liability, or even worse, is not reachable (contactable) - changed address, moved abroad, etc...

    What happens then?

    X fulfilled his duty, and gave correct information in relation to who was driving the vehicle. Is he in the clear now, or can he still be charged for offence he didn't commit, just because Y is trying to avoid liability?
    The likelihood is that he would have to attend court to give evidence to that effect.

    He may face a difficulty that because of the lack of any corroborative evidence (e.g., a witness to back him up), the judge does not accept his evidence or prefers the State's evidence.

    Of course, he may told his wife or someone else close to him who can corroborate. (Please no one bring up hearsay.)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    CiniO wrote: »
    OK.
    All seems to be clear now with quoted laws. I'm happy I finally undestood this system.
    Except one thing which I'm still not sure.

    Assume Car registered owner named X, lent his car to Y, and Y while driving it got caught speeding by speed camera.
    X receives notice, and he gives Y details. All good so far.

    But what happens if Y refuses to accept liability, or even worse, is not reachable (contactable) - changed address, moved abroad, etc...

    What happens then?

    X fulfilled his duty, and gave correct information in relation to who was driving the vehicle. Is he in the clear now, or can he still be charged for offence he didn't commit, just because Y is trying to avoid liability?

    If required X may have to give evidence in court as a witness under oath. If AGS believe X and Y can not be served then that may be the end if it, say if X says my cousin from America was driving. If AGS believe X is making Y up they may still prosecute X who can get into the box and rebut the presumption.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    If required X may have to give evidence in court as a witness under oath. If AGS believe X and Y can not be served then that may be the end if it, say if X says my cousin from America was driving. If AGS believe X is making Y up they may still prosecute X who can get into the box and rebut the presumption.

    But surely there is reasonable doubt that X was not the driver.

    If the offence is a traffic offence do we revert to the balance of probability?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Zambia wrote: »
    But surely there is reasonable doubt that X was not the driver.

    If the offence is a traffic offence do we revert to the balance of probability?

    The burden has shifted to the accused, that burden is only the civil burden. If a judge believes that x has satisfied the court that on the balance of probability that he was not driving then the court will acquit. That of course will depend on the evidence presented. If on the other hand the court is not satisfied with the evidence then it will convict. It is also a risk as some DJ's may not take kindly to I don't know who was driving defence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,998 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    So, in this case, the registered owner of the car will give evidence which basically say "It was either me or my wife driving. It could have been either of us. I cannot say more than that." That doesn't show that, on the balance of probabilities, it wasn't the registered owner who was driving, so he hasn't discharged the burden of proof. He will be convicted.

    What happens if he says something like this? "It could have been either of us. This car is mostly driven by my wife, so odds are it was her, but I do drive it sometimes and as neither of us remembers the day in question I can't positively say that it wasn't me. So, really, it was more likely to have been my wife, but I can't absolutely say that it wasn't me."

    It seems to me that, if the court accepts this evidence, it should acquit him, because it was more probably his wife driving. But if AGS then prosecute his wife, I don't think any presumption comes into play, does it? So AGS will have to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that his wife was driving. And I don't think they can do that. So she should be acquitted too.

    Am I missing something?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,087 ✭✭✭Pro Hoc Vice


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    So, in this case, the registered owner of the car will give evidence which basically say "It was either me or my wife driving. It could have been either of us. I cannot say more than that." That doesn't show that, on the balance of probabilities, it wasn't the registered owner who was driving, so he hasn't discharged the burden of proof. He will be convicted.

    What happens if he says something like this? "It could have been either of us. This car is mostly driven by my wife, so odds are it was her, but I do drive it sometimes and as neither of us remembers the day in question I can't positively say that it wasn't me. So, really, it was more likely to have been my wife, but I can't absolutely say that it wasn't me."

    It seems to me that, if the court accepts this evidence, it should acquit him, because it was more probably his wife driving. But if AGS then prosecute his wife, I don't think any presumption comes into play, does it? So AGS will have to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that his wife was driving. And I don't think they can do that. So she should be acquitted too.

    Am I missing something?

    AGS would be beyond the 6 months to request summons against wife.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,998 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    AGS would be beyond the 6 months to request summons against wife.
    True. But suppose they weren't. In the scenario I outline, would they be in a situation where they couldn't get a conviction against either?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    True. But suppose they weren't. In the scenario I outline, would they be in a situation where they couldn't get a conviction against either?

    I would agree any court I have been in the magistrate is not fond of being given a choice.

    "Your honour in my submission either mr x or mrs x was driving and broke the speed limit."


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,998 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zambia wrote: »
    I would agree any court I have been in the magistrate is not fond of being given a choice.

    "Your honour in my submission either mr x or mrs x was driving and broke the speed limit."
    You can't prosecute "either Mr X or Mrs X", and this is clearly not an offence that they can have committed jointly. It seems to me that if you prosecute Mr X and he gives the evidence I outlined he must be acquitted. But if you prosecute Mrs X and the only evidence that she was driving is the evidence of Mr X, she must be acquitted too.

    On reflection, perhaps this is an inevitable result when, in a criminal matter, you shift the onus of proof to the defendant, but apply the civil standard of proof. Evidence which will meet the civil standard but not the criminal standard will acquit the defendant, but will not be sufficient to convict anyone else.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭Zambia


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You can't prosecute "either Mr X or Mrs X", and this is clearly not an offence that they can have committed jointly. It seems to me that if you prosecute Mr X and he gives the evidence I outlined he must be acquitted. But if you prosecute Mrs X and the only evidence that she was driving is the evidence of Mr X, she must be acquitted too.

    Exactly right, but is there any offence he is guilty of by failing to disclose the driver on the day?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement