Offences which can multiply

GM228

Just doing some research on traffic offences which could actually see you slapped with two or more seperate offences and so far have come up with the following:-

No car tax - ie you could be done for having no car tax AND for non-display.

No car insurance - again you could be done for driving with no car insurance and non-display.

No driving licence - you could be done for not having a licence on you at the time, failure to produce within 10 days (or driving without a licence which would cancel out the first two I suppose).

I suppose many offences could see dangerous driving or driving without due care added to them also such as speeding.

In reality it probably dosn't generally happen, but could happen. For example a Guard would usually give you 10 days to produce your licence, but could also do you for not having it with you when stopped and then if you don't produce in 10 days, another offence.

I'd be interested in any others posters can think of.

Carawaystick

Does double jeopardy not apply?

GM228

Carawaystick wrote: »

Does double jeopardy not apply?

Double jeopardy only applies to been tried for the same or similar offence a second time after acquittal I believe? They are still seperate offences.

Carawaystick

I don't think you can charge someone with a serious crime and weasel in a minor charge for the same action
Like you can't charge someone with manslaughter and assault in case they are acquitted of manslaughter

coylemj

Carawaystick wrote: »

I don't think you can charge someone with a serious crime and weasel in a minor charge for the same action

In many cases the law allows a jury to 'weasel ' in a lesser charge like for example it allows a jury to find a person accused of murder to be guilty of manslaughter or in a trial for dangerous driving causing death or serious injury, they can reduce it to careless driving and so on.

Terrontress

Someone who speeds up to get through the amber light and gets caught for both speeding and breaking a red.

monument

Moved from Commuting and Transport.

THall04

About twenty years ago I worked for a fella who was very slow about renewing the road tax for the vans he owned , but I had to drive.

Sure enough I got stopped by the Guards after it was noticed my tax disc from the previous year was bright yellow as opposed to dark brown for the current year.
As the driver , the court summons was issued in my name.
My boss said he had lots of Gardai friends and would get it sorted.
This never happened.

I didn't go to court and received two fines in the post.

1: 100 pounds fine for Failure to display a valid tax disc.
2: 100 pounds fine displaying an item "purporting" to be a valid tax disc....the item in question being the old yellow one.

I've always wondered would I have got only one fine if the tax disc holder was left empty, OR , if the judgement would have been the same if the disc had been replaced by a brown label from a beer bottle.

smash

NCT expired and no test date in sight?

Driving without a valid NCT cert
Not displaying a valid NCT cert
Not producing a valid NCT cert

That's about 10 points please!

slimjimmc

smash wrote: »

NCT expired and no test date in sight?

Driving without a valid NCT cert
Not displaying a valid NCT cert
Not producing a valid NCT cert

That's about 10 points please!

You only get points for one offence (the one with the highest points) where multiple offences are detected on the same occasion. You still get stuck with multiple fines though.

Another one: Learner driver unaccompanied and/or no L-plates
- driving unaccompanied and/or no L-plates
- driving without a licence (breach of Learner Permit conditions)
- possible driving without insurance (only if insurance policy has a clause excluding cover when breaching LP conditions).

coylemj

THall04 wrote: »

About twenty years ago......


I didn't go to court and received two fines in the post.

1: 100 pounds fine for Failure to display a valid tax disc.
2: 100 pounds fine displaying an item "purporting" to be a valid tax disc....the item in question being the old yellow one.

Your memory is a bit hazy. The situation with the tax disc has always involved two offences - one of not paying the relevant tax, the other not displaying a current disc, similar to the current requirements with motor insurance i.e. have a valid policy and display a current disc.

I'm not aware of any offence of displaying something 'purporting' to be a tax disc and even if there is, it couldn't possibly include simply leaving an expired disc on the windscreen.

Jesus.

Terrontress wrote: »

Someone who speeds up to get through the amber light and gets caught for both speeding and breaking a red.

But he wouldn't have broken a red

Terrontress

Jesus. wrote: »

But he wouldn't have broken a red

His efforts were fruitless

polan

A guard wanted to do me for dangerous driving just because I was speeding. He was actually threatening to arrest me!

145 on a 100 (N7)

Explaining that I was late for a hospital appointment helped I suppose.

savagethegoat

Jesus. wrote: »

But he wouldn't have broken a red

the offence would be failing to stop, not breaking a red, and amber means stop...speeding up would be evidence that you intentionally didn't stop I imagine

polan

savagethegoat wrote: »

the offence would be failing to stop, not breaking a red, and amber means stop if it's safe to do so...speeding up would be evidence that you intentionally didn't stop I imagine

FYP.

Jawgap

GM228 wrote: »

Double jeopardy only applies to been tried for the same or similar offence a second time after acquittal I believe? They are still seperate offences.

No it's charging multiple offences to the same set of circumstances - for example, if you murdered someone you couldn't be done for attempted murder and murder of the same person. It's intended to prevent prosecutors from re-trying cases until they get a conviction.

In the case of 'multiplying' offences - some of them are predicated on certain facts. For example, you couldn't be done for not having insurance and failing to display because failing to display presumes you had something to display! So if you had no insurance that would be the correct charge.

I think sometimes Guards lob in both so if you show up on the day and prove you had insurance (or tax or a licence) you don't get clean away.

savagethegoat

polan wrote: »

FYP.

that's not of much relevance seeing if the guy speeded up.

dr.fuzzenstein

savagethegoat wrote: »

that's not of much relevance seeing if the guy speeded up.

Well, it couldn't be safe to speed up and then come to a screeching halt diagonally across the intersection.