Judge throws out 100 cases of speeding over outsourcing

the culture of deference

Almost 100 motorists accused of speeding yesterday escaped any sanction after a judge dismissed all 'Go Safe' cases against them

Judge Patrick Durcan dismissed 98 'Go Safe' prosecutions against the motorists accused of speeding on two legal grounds.

Judge Durcan dismissed the cases over the failure of the Go Safe personnel in court to provide evidence that they were authorised to give evidence on behalf of Inspector John McDonald, who heads up the Garda Fixed Charge Processing Unit.

He also dismissed the 98 cases after ruling that the Go Safe employees couldn't give any evidence as to whether the fixed-charge notice was paid or not.

Surveying the packed courtroom that included around 12 Go Safe staff, Judge Durcan said: "Insp. McDonald is out in force today with the artillery."

The fleet of around 50 Go Safe vans is operated by an Isle of Man firm that last year put the profits it makes out of sight by changing its status to that of an unlimited company.

The Go Safe consortium secured the €80m Garda Siochana contract to operate the speed camera vans in 2009 and recorded operating profits of around €50,000 per week in 2012.

Earlier this year in court, Ivor Browne, director of the firm that operates Go Safe, Road Safety Operations Ireland, told Judge Durcan: "The reason we introduced the Isle of Man structure was to just limit access to our accounts from a competitors' point of view."

He said: "There is no argument that speeding on our roads is not welcome but our citizens are entitled to due process and fair procedures when they face a day in court. If the State in its wisdom is outsourcing important garda duties to a private off-shore company, then the same principles and duties that the gardai are bound by must apply. To date that has not been my experience of this set up."

Mr Hassett said that the Road Traffic Act 2010 facilitates the outsourcing of detecting motorists speeding to the Isle of Man firm.
He said that Go Safe "should not be asked to even attempt to replicate the expertise that experienced gardai have brought to this role on a daily basis for many years".

jprboy

Link?

And who's the "Mr Hassett" referred to?

wonski

jprboy wrote: »

Link?

And who's the "Mr Hassett" referred to?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-throws-out-100-cases-of-speeding-over-outsourcing-30665588.html

mickdw

He is a bit of a loose canon this judge but fair play to him if he sees that they are shody in their procedures.

I was also surprised to learn (prime time expose) that their procedure for checking speed is heavily dependent on the actual van being square to the road / direction of travel. They set up the camera at quite an angle to the road, reading the cars speed when it is reasonably close to the van. Given that they are reading at an angle, the recorded speed would be less than actual speed so they then apply a correction factor to bring the recorded speed into line with what it should be. Now that is all well and good if they are set up correctly and know the angle that the reading has been taken at but some of their drivers interviewed said that equipment that they relied upon to setup was regularly broken but management would often tell the driver to work away anyway. This will result in incorrect speed being recorded.

dr.fuzzenstein

Another case of frustrated district court trying to make a name for himself by Irish RM antics.
They like to render insane verdicts that they know will be overturned by a proper court, but they get column inches and a kick out of it.
Pure wild west stuff and he knows it.
Let's see what happens once the adults have to step in once again to clear this mess.

pred racer

mickdw wrote: »

He is a bit of a loose canon this judge but fair play to him if he sees that they are shody in their procedures.

I was also surprised to learn (prime time expose) that their procedure for checking speed is heavily dependent on the actual van being square to the road / direction of travel. They set up the camera at quite an angle to the road, reading the cars speed when it is reasonably close to the van. Given that they are reading at an angle, the recorded speed would be less than actual speed so they then apply a correction factor to bring the recorded speed into line with what it should be. Now that is all well and good if they are set up correctly and know the angle that the reading has been taken at but some of their drivers interviewed said that equipment that they relied upon to setup was regularly broken but management would often tell the driver to work away anyway. This will result in incorrect speed being recorded.

I've seen them out with measuring equipment before they start monitoring.
IMO you have to be very close to the vans to be caught. Unless you are taken completely by surprise, haul on the anchors and you should be alright
I know I was;)

Cee-Jay-Cee

I've a friend who works for go safe. He says the camera/laser starts detecting at approx 100-150m away but the actual photo of your car isn't taken till the car is very close to the van so you can stomp on the brakes but you may already have been detected further back.

mikeecho

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

I've a friend who works for go safe. He says the camera/laser starts detecting at approx 100-150m away but the actual photo of your car isn't taken till the car is very close to the van so you can stomp on the brakes but you may already have been detected further back.

If your friend is telling you that they use laser, then he is telling porkies.

But yes, they operate at a very short range.
Also, when the photo is taken, it is your speed at that very moment that is recorded.

colm_mcm

What a clown. What sort of message foes this send out? If you get caught, don't pay the fine, if it goes to court the judge will throw it out?

This is the same guy that gives driving bans for parking offences and lets beauty queens off 187kmph offences with a fine on the grounds that they admitted to doing it.

mickdw

colm_mcm wrote: »

What a clown. What sort of message foes this send out? If you get caught, don't pay the fine, if it goes to court the judge will throw it out?

This is the same guy that gives driving bans for parking offences and lets beauty queens off 187kmph offences with a fine on the grounds that they admitted to doing it.

I think the beauty queen think was blown out of all proportion. She got a fine. She will also receive penalty points. Although not mentioned in court so much, once convicted of the offence, points will be applied to licence. Imo, a ban would have been too much for a single speeding offence given that it was on open motorway.

I think he is right to throw out this kind of stuff if the people bringing the case cannot get their sh1t together.

Stheno

I'm having a slow day, why exactly did he throw out the cases?

Because he wasn't satisfied the go safe staff could testify on behalf of a cop?

mikeecho

Stheno wrote: »

I'm having a slow day, why exactly did he throw out the cases?

Because he wasn't satisfied the go safe staff could testify on behalf of a cop?

Basically what he was saying is that, The GoSafe operator who was giving evidence, could not prove that the original ticket was not paid, as they do not have access to the garda pulse system.

Proving that the original fine was not paid would be an essential piece of evidence in convicting someone.