A friends first day in court

Guffy

A mate of mine was pulled in February having no tax since June 2013. He couldn't afford the fines when they came and got the inevitable summons.

He said he went in this morning planning to say he had no money at the time of the fine but could pay it now. Never had any trouble before and beg for the judges leniency when it came to the conviction.

When he arrived he said it was mad. The place was packed, mostly for motor offenses. He had to wait a while for his case and said there were 4 or 5 people who went up and said they never got the penalty letter. Their cases were thrown out. Apparently he decided to say **** it and told the judge that he never got it either, under oath.

The case was stricken out. No fine whatsoever. I mean surely he should have been made to pay the original fine at the very least. Why was the case dismissed altogether? Should he not have been told you have from this date to pay the fine? All someone has to do is walk in and say sorry judge. Never got the letter and that's that?

MarkAnthony

Okay so the system relies on people telling the truth under oath. Perhaps that's daft but there we go. I'd like to think people are honest but there does seem to be an attitude in the country that honour is all well and good as long as it doesn't cost anything.

There was no way of proving he did get the post so at the end of the day it was a fair outcome. Other than your friend lied.

Yes the courts are freaking packed - perhaps people could stop breaking the law - that'd be grand.

Guffy

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Okay so the system relies on people telling the truth under oath. Perhaps that's daft but there we go. I'd like to think people are honest but there does seem to be an attitude in the country that honour is all well and good as long as it doesn't cost anything.

There was no way of proving he did get the post so at the end of the day it was a fair outcome. Other than your friend lied.
.

I get that but why is it dismissed completely as opposed to formal issuing of the original fine?

MarkAnthony

gufc21 wrote: »

I get that but why is it dismissed completely as opposed to formal issuing of the original fine?

Your friend has the option of pleading his case rather than just paying the fine. Just being forced to pay it would be unfair. By not paying the fine he was indicating he wanted to plead his case to the Judge.

I sincerely hope given the money/bum search he's saved himself he'll go and buy a tax disc?

cml387

The law is an ass, sometimes, particularly at district court level.

Many years ago an acquaintance at work was caught drunken driving one night.

It was a fair cop as he ran straight into the railway gates amidst steam and curses.

At the time there was a challenge to the breathalyser law ( this is nearly thirty years ago) so his case was put back many times.
On his last appearance (with many others in the same boat) the DJ simply said "Justice delayed is justice denied" and dismissed all the cases.

MarkAnthony

cml387 wrote: »

The law is an ass, sometimes, particularly at district court level.

Many years ago an acquaintance at work was caught drunken driving one night.

It was a fair cop as he ran straight into the railway gates amidst steam and curses.

At the time there was a challenge to the breathalyser law ( this is nearly thirty years ago) so his case was put back many times.
On his last appearance (with many others in the same boat) the DJ simply said "Justice delayed is justice denied" and dismissed all the cases.

I'd say that's a case of Justice being well served IMHO.

cml387

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I'd say that's a case of Justice being well served IMHO.

Well...up to a point.

MarkAnthony

cml387 wrote: »

Well...up to a point.

Sorry I mean in the sense of the courts. Cosmically yes of course he should have got a slap.

EDIT absolutely no doubt that the DC isn't what people expect. It's more like a mosh pit than Boston Legal.

Guffy

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Your friend has the option of pleading his case rather than just paying the fine. Just being forced to pay it would be unfair. By not paying the fine he was indicating he wanted to plead his case to the Judge.

I sincerely hope given the money/bum search he's saved himself he'll go and buy a tax disc?

Lol ya he 'sold' me the car to void the arrears and i sold it back again.

State has to be loosing a few bob on this every year

MarkAnthony

gufc21 wrote: »

Lol ya he 'sold' me the car to void the arrears and i sold it back again.

State has to be loosing a few bob on this every year

Silly state expecting people to be honest :P

Granted if they can't be arsed changing procedures my sympathy/moral outrage dwindles.

cml387

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Sorry I mean in the sense of the courts. Cosmically yes of course he should have got a slap.

EDIT absolutely no doubt that the DC isn't what people expect. It's more like a mosh pit than Boston Legal.

Anybody who hasn't should spend a few hours in a district court.
Sometimes I think they should charge admission.

Guffy

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Silly state expecting people to be honest :P

They realise we're irish and there is a few bob involved right :P

Grolschevik

Are you sure he was actually under oath for a traffic offence in a busy district court? Just standing up and answering the judge doesn't automatically put you 'under oath'.

Guffy

cml387 wrote: »

Anybody who hasn't should spend a few hours in a district court.
Sometimes I think they should charge admission.

I'm actually off tomorrow so gona head in for a biy... Sounds mad

Guffy

Grolschevik wrote: »

Are you sure he was actually under oath for a traffic offence in a busy district court? Just standing up and answering the judge doesn't automatically put you 'under oath'.

Said there was a bible involved

Carawaystick

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Silly state expecting people to be honest :P

Granted if they can't be arsed changing procedures my sympathy/moral outrage dwindles.

Well if a Minister of Defence can lie to the high court with no consequences, it's hard to see how the state can expect everyone else to be honest.

cml387

Anyone who had a Catholic education will remember being told that lying under oath was a "reserved" sin, which meant that only a bishop or ranks above could give absolution.

I imagine that that doesn't really cut much ice these days.