Penality Points & Abuse Of Power. Advise Please.

InsiderIreland

Hi all,

I am reaching out here as I really need some advice and opinion on the following matter.

On Feb 26th 2016, at around 8.25 in the evening., a white car pulled up beside mine at traffic lights on Bothar Na Drabh, in Galway. As it pulled up and stopped abruptly, it caught my attention, so I looked across at it. There was a female Garda sitting in the passenger seat, the car was a white, unmarked Hyundai. I looked away again and thought more of it.

As I pulled away from the lights, it crossed over into the lane behind me, and stayed behind me as I crossed Galway city. I was stopped in traffic outside Dunnes Stores on the Headford Road, when I noticed the white Hyundai, still behind me, was flashing at me, and the driver was waving his hand at me. Assuming he wanted to speak to me about something, and considering the traffic situation, the lack of safe places to pull in, and the fact I did not consider it was urgent, I decided to cross the Quincentennial Bridge and pull into the petrol station there, safely out of the traffic flow.

I pulled up to a stop and switched off the engine. The unmarked Garda car pulled in beside me. Three uniformed Gardaí got out and approached my car, the time was 20.34. To say the least I was alarmed. One of them came to the drivers window. He said, 'you were on your mobile'. I was absolutely taken aback. I replied to him, 'I absolutely was not'. He said,'your not now, but you were on Bothar Na Drabh'. He asked me for my Driving Licence, which I produced there and then. While he was examining it, the two other Gardaí were looking over the car, checking tax, NCT and insurance. One looked in through the open passenger side window. He handed me back my driving licence, he did not say anything, the three of them then got back into their car and drove off.

Last week I got a Penality Points Notice, accusing me of holding a mobile phone, on Bothar na Drabh, at 8.40 (20.40, AFTER he had stopped me). Not only had the Garda not told me he was pursuing the matter, but my confidence in the Gardaí has been totally destroyed. I am shocked, annoyed and disappointed.

I was not holding a mobile phone. The car has Bluetooth which automatically connects to my mobile, it does not require any holding of the phone, to make or receive calls. In fact, the last call was made at 18.09 that day and the last call received was at 18.01. The last text received was at 12.16 that day and the only text send was at 20.44, after the Garda had stopped me.

The car I was driving was a rare, top end, performance car. It is used for chauffeur work and has black out blinds on the rear window and 100% dark tint on the rear passenger windows.
It is impossible to see into the car from the rear or from any angle, other than side by side, through the front windows.

The Garda could not have seen me holding a mobile phone, even if I had have been doing so, unless he was side by side with me, or a very slight angle to the rear. Obviously, after the Garda car had pulled up beside me originally at the traffic lights, and knowing that they were near me, I most certainly would not had attempted to hold a mobile phone.

I had been travelling up from a country location that evening, my Garmin Sat Nav was switched on and sitting on top of a jacket, on the front passenger seat, the screen was live, that is, constantly updating the route. My mobile phone was also sitting on the jacket. Both devices are almost exactly the same size, the mobile is a Note 3.

If the Garda spotted something, I can only assume he saw me switching off the Sat Nav as I came into Galway city on Bothar na Drabh. As I said, it was on all day, and at this stage sitting on a jacket on the front passenger seat.

To complete the picture, I better give you an outline of my own details. I have been driving for 29 years, no convictions, Penalty Points, accidents, fines, or have ever 'come to the attention of the Gardai'. I hold a full, clean driving licence, covering every class of vehicles. I also hold a PSV Licence.

My opinion is that possibly the Gardaí saw some light in the car, and assumed it was a mobile phone being used. It is also possible that the car attracted their attention and needing a reason to stop me, used the 'holding a mobile phone', line to justify the stop.

The bottom line is that while it may 'make sense', to just accept the points and move on, I really feel this type of behaviour and abuse of power by this Garda should be challenged.
To quote Edmund Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing".

Any suggestion as to how I can appeal this decision, on what grounds and where do I go from here?

Many thanks,
DT

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Little CuChulainn

So you were holding your sat nav while driving?

cml387

Joe Duffy had a a number of people on complaining about the same thing.

The offence is for holding a mobile, so it's no use showing phone logs to demonstrate you weren't taking a call.

One of the callers to JD said they went to court and the charges were dropped ( he wasn't clear whether they were struck out, or the Gardai asked for them to be struck out).
It cost him a day + 300 euro for a solicitor so it wasn't cheap.


Edit:I see you were fiddling with the sat nav. Sorry I think you have no hope.

InsiderIreland

No charge for 'fiddling' with a Sat Nav, only holding a mobile phone. That's the charge.

InsiderIreland

Moved to Motoring, sorry I didn't post I'm the right section!

Little CuChulainn

Look, you've already admitted to operating a sat nav while driving so you can forget this whole "abuse of power" nonsense. The Garda saw you operating a device he thought was a mobile phone and prosecuted you for it. You even said your sat nav and phone look similar. At most you can claim that the Garda was mistaken and unwilling to accept your explanation. Hardly the "evil" Burke was referring to.

Your options are to accept it, appeal it to the FCPS office, or appeal it in court. I wouldn't put too much hope on your six minute discrepancy though.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Carawaystick

If it goes to court and you've a navigation unit that looks like a phone, a good lawyer should be able to cast doubt on the garda's evidence of holding a phone.

Canadel

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

So you were holding your sat nav while driving?

What has that got to do with anything?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Look, you've already admitted to operating a sat nav while driving so you can forget this whole "abuse of power" nonsense. The Garda saw you operating a device he thought was a mobile phone and prosecuted you for it. You even said your sat nav and phone look similar. At most you can claim that the Garda was mistaken and unwilling to accept your explanation. Hardly the "evil" Burke was referring to.

Your options are to accept it, appeal it to the FCPS office, or appeal it in court. I wouldn't put too much hope on your six minute discrepancy though.

So the law operates based on what Gardaí thought they saw now? Good to know.

MarkAnthony

You pop along to the District Court with all your evidence, simples.

NUTLEY BOY

Just to clarify a point please.

How can it be an offence to hold a satnav in your hand whilst driving ?

I appreciate the position in relation to the mere holding of a mobile phone. Is a satnav classified similarly ?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

BattleCorp

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Just to clarify a point please.

How can it be an offence to hold a satnav in your hand whilst driving ?

I appreciate the position in relation to the mere holding of a mobile phone. Is a satnav classified similarly ?

Is tapping the screen on the SatNav while it sits on a jacket considered to be holding the device?

GM228

Fred Swanson wrote: »

What does the original SI say? Communications device or mobile phone?

Mobile phone only (or any portable device capable of interactive communications except a hands-free device) is covered, there are currently no laws preventing holding or using other types of electronic devices, however if your SayNav can send/receive text messages (some Garmins can) via your Bluetooth then you could find it covered under current legislation.

The RSA stated in 2014 regarding apps on phones and other electronic devices:-

The Department will address other phone applications and the use of other electronic devices while driving when we have an all-encompassing means of identifying them within a legal framework. However, motorists are advised never to use their phones or electronic devices for any purpose.

Little CuChulainn

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No idea who makes the decision now. It's not statutory as far as I am aware.

Canadel wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything?

If it looked like a phone then it's reasonable for the Garda to think it was a phone.

Canadel wrote: »

So the law operates based on what Gardaí thought they saw now? Good to know.

Yes. The Garda gives testimony as to what he saw and then the op has the opportunity to do the same. How did you think traffic offences were prosecuted?

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Mobile phone. Although the definition of a mobile is broad enough. I don't know if it's ever been tested with a sat nav.

BattleCorp

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Mobile phone. Although the definition of a mobile is broad enough. I don't know if it's ever been tested with a sat nav.

I doubt the definition of a mobile phone is broad enough to encompass a sat nav as a mobile phone.

Mr. Incognito

If you feel that it is worth pursing then you can go along to the District Court.

The Burden of Proof is on prosecution as its a criminal matter.

If they cannot give sworn evidence to say that you were holding your mobile phone then it will be struck out.

If the Guard (one or more) give sworn evidence then it's up to you to swear that you were not and take your chances.

Any decent solicitor would most likely have it thrown out.

Little CuChulainn

BattleCorp wrote: »

I doubt the definition of a mobile phone is broad enough to encompass a sat nav as a mobile phone.

“ mobile phone ” means a portable communication device, other than a two-way radio, with which a person is capable of making or receiving a call or performing an interactive communication function, but for the purposes of subsection (1) does not include a hands-free device;

"interactive communication function ” includes
(a) sending or receiving oral or written messages
(b) sending or receiving facsimile documents
(c) sending or receiving still or moving images, or
(d) providing access to the internet;"

Seems like it could fit the definition of (a) in that it is a device that receives oral messages. But like I said, I don't know if any case has looked at the issue.

GM228

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Seems like it could fit the definition of (a) in that it is a device that receives oral messages. But like I said, I don't know if any case has looked at the issue.

But a SatNav does not "send" or "receive" messages. It may play or display messages, but it isn't sending or receiving them.

Little CuChulainn

GM228 wrote: »

But a SatNav does not "send" or "receive" messages. It may play or display messages, but it isn't sending or receiving them.

It sends and receives data and presents it in a visual and audio medium. Not much different than a text or mms message. There's no definition given for what a message is so I can't see how you can categorically rule out the directions given and maps presented by a sat nav without a case stated on the matter.

PBWXFORD

I was stopped by 2 Guards a few years back who tried accusing me of being on my mobile when they passed me going the other way, they then turned around and pulled me over. I told them i certainly was not on the phone and took my phone out of my pocket and told them to check themselves to see when the last calls and messages were made/received which they declined. I was told i would receive a fine for this to which i replied that i would not be paying. As soon as i got home i called Vodafone and explained my situation and asked for a copy of my phone activity for that day which they sent me no problem although im fairly sure i had to pay them a small fee for this. As soon as i got the Info from Vodafone i went to the Garda station and asked to speak to the Super but was told i would have to make an appointment which i did and i also explained my situation and the member in charged asked could he hold onto my records to show the Super but i told him he could by all means take a copy but i would be keeping the original. He did this and i made an appointment for 3 days time.

Funnily enough on the day of the proposed appointment about 1 hour before i was to meet with the Super i received a phone call from the station telling me that there was no need for me to attend as the matter had been dealt with and there would be no more about it.

In my opinion if you are not guilty there is no way you should accept the fine and points. You should fight it and mabey do like i did because if they see you making enough of a fuss over what they would class as a simple fine then mabey their superiors will know that you must be telling the truth and it might never go to court but even if it does i would argue my case in court. Remember if you did get convicted in the district court you still have the option to appeal to the circuit court.

whomitconcerns

Problem is nothing you say below would prove you didn't have the phone in your hand. So lot of work for nothing. Coincidence that it was pulled.

PBWXFORD wrote: »

I was stopped by 2 Guards a few years back who tried accusing me of being on my mobile when they passed me going the other way, they then turned around and pulled me over. I told them i certainly was not on the phone and took my phone out of my pocket and told them to check themselves to see when the last calls and messages were made/received which they declined. I was told i would receive a fine for this to which i replied that i would not be paying. As soon as i got home i called Vodafone and explained my situation and asked for a copy of my phone activity for that day which they sent me no problem although im fairly sure i had to pay them a small fee for this. As soon as i got the Info from Vodafone i went to the Garda station and asked to speak to the Super but was told i would have to make an appointment which i did and i also explained my situation and the member in charged asked could he hold onto my records to show the Super but i told him he could by all means take a copy but i would be keeping the original. He did this and i made an appointment for 3 days time.

Funnily enough on the day of the proposed appointment about 1 hour before i was to meet with the Super i received a phone call from the station telling me that there was no need for me to attend as the matter had been dealt with and there would be no more about it.

In my opinion if you are not guilty there is no way you should accept the fine and points. You should fight it and mabey do like i did because if they see you making enough of a fuss over what they would class as a simple fine then mabey their superiors will know that you must be telling the truth and it might never go to court but even if it does i would argue my case in court. Remember if you did get convicted in the district court you still have the option to appeal to the circuit court.

PBWXFORD

Well surely it would be a very strange thing for somebody to be driving along with a phone up to their ear for no reason and of not even making or receiving a call!

I doubt it was a coincidence when they were so adamant on fining me for the alleged offence for them to just drop it like that when I kicked up a fuss about it.

In any case there is no way I would lay down and pay a fine or admit to doing something in the wrong which I clearly did not do. Others may just pay it to save hassle but that's not me i would fight it to the end!!
But that's just my opinion, and my advice would be to find a good solicitor and state your case

BattleCorp

PBWXFORD wrote: »

Well surely it would be a very strange thing for somebody to be driving along with a phone up to their ear for no reason and of not even making or receiving a call!

The crime is holding the phone in your hand, not having it up to your ear. You could be looking at a text, Facebook, getting ready to make a phone call, only after making/taking a phone call etc.

There are loads of reasons to have a phone in your hand and all of them are useless in court as it is illegal to hold a mobile phone while driving.

PBWXFORD

Well all of the call and text area's are covered by getting a phone record for that day as i did in my case but yes it would not cover other area's such as the phone being used for facebook or checking emails etc.

GM228

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It sends and receives data and presents it in a visual and audio medium. Not much different than a text or mms message. There's no definition given for what a message is so I can't see how you can categorically rule out the directions given and maps presented by a sat nav without a case stated on the matter.

Sending and receiving data is not the same as sending or receiving a message.

“ mobile phone ” means a portable communication device, other than a two-way radio, with which a person is capable of making or receiving a call or performing an interactive communication function, but for the purposes of subsection (1) does not include a hands-free device;

The part in bold requires that the person is capable of performing an interactive communication function with the device, not that the device is performing an interactive function.

GPS devices do not send any data, they lock onto at least three satellites which transmit radio signals and use these to determine their location using a process known as Trilateration.

The GPS device is not presenting any information to the user which it has received, it is transmitting information which is pre-programmed into it which it's also worth noting is one-way communication, not interactive communication as per the quote from the SI.

jack presley

Do you actually have to be holding he phone or can you be done for accessing it while it is placed on the passenger seat?

GM228

jack presley wrote: »

Do you actually have to be holding he phone or can you be done for accessing it while it is placed on the passenger seat?

Depends on what you are accessing the phone for, if you are accessing it to send or read a SMS or MMS or e-mail then you can be done, but if you are accessing it to say open a browser if you havn't held or cradled the phone then you arn't breaking the law!

whomitconcerns

GM228 wrote: »

Depends on what you are accessing the phone for, if you are accessing it to send or read a SMS or MMS or e-mail then you can be done, but if you are accessing it to say open a browser if you havn't held or cradled the phone then yoy arn't breaking the law!

Your correct on that, and now firmly in the area of driving without due care and attention...which is more serious!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Little CuChulainn

GM228 wrote: »

Sending and receiving data is not the same as sending or receiving a message.



The part in bold requires that the person is capable of performing an interactive communication function with the device, not that the device is performing an interactive function.

GPS devices do not send any data, they lock onto at least three satellites which transmit radio signals and use these to determine their location using a process known as Trilateration.

The GPS device is not presenting any information to the user which it has received, it is transmitting information which is pre-programmed into it which it's also worth noting is one-way communication, not interactive communication as per the quote from the SI.

The GPS is presenting information it has received. That's how it shows your location. Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion but I can't see how you can be so dismissive of my counter opinion without any reference to case law to back it up.

whippet

Depending on the model Sat Navs can display SMS messages, live traffic reports etc .. Which would fall under the definition in the legislation.

GM228

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The GPS is presenting information it has received.

It isn't.

GPS device dosn't actually present the information it receives to the user, your location isn't the information it receives, it presents information already pre-loaded onto the device which the device determines based on it's lock on the GPS satellites, GPS satellites send precise (atomic) time and their location to the GPS receiver, this information is not given to the person using it.

This may seem petty to point out but it's important to point out and very valid to show that the person is not sending or receiving any messages/data that the device has received as that's impossible.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion but I can't see how you can be so dismissive of my counter opinion without any reference to case law to back it up.

Case law isn't required, to come under the act the message must be oral or written, the data received by a GPS is neither, the person using the device must be capable of sending or receiving the measage which in this case they are not and the message must be an interactive communication which it isn't.

As the act dosn't define the meaning of "message" then it has it's ordinary meaning. To establish the ordinary meaning you can have recourse to any common dictionary.

But if there is more than one possible meaning then fair enough the court will decide which meaning is best suited/intended for the act as a whole, but there is no meaning of message which relates to "data" in any dictionary I can find.

More importantly the SI requires that the message is sent or received in oral or written form, no oral or written message is received from the GPS satellite so even if a court did decide that message was construed as data received it still isn't oral or written data that has been received-again that's not possible.

And another important note, the other point I previously raised is that the communication must be "interactive" as per the SI. An interactive communication is a continuous two-way communication which is not the case with a SatNav and the "person" must be able to send and receive the interactive communication not just the device.

whippet wrote: »

Depending on the model Sat Navs can display SMS messages, live traffic reports etc .. Which would fall under the definition in the legislation.

In that case yes the SatNav would come under the legislation as I already pointed out, but not all SatNavs can do that so it's depending on the model.

Little CuChulainn

GM228 wrote: »

It isn't.

GPS device dosn't actually present the information it receives to the user, your location isn't the information it receives, it presents information already pre-loaded onto the device which the device determines based on it's lock on the GPS satellites, GPS satellites send precise (atomic) time and their location to the GPS receiver, this information is not given to the person using it.

This may seem petty to point out but it's important to point out and very valid to show that the person is not sending or receiving any messages/data that the device has received as that's impossible.

I disagree. The Sat Nav is presenting the data it receives to the user in the form of a representation of their location. Yes it goes through some process to convert the data to a dot but so this a text message go through a process to convert the data it receives into a readable form.

GM228 wrote: »

Case law isn't required, to come under the act the message must be oral or written, the data received by a GPS is neither, the person using the device must be capable of sending or receiving the measage which in this case they are not and the message must be an interactive communication which it isn't.

As the act dosn't define the meaning of "message" then it has it's ordinary meaning. To establish the ordinary meaning you can have recourse to any common dictionary.

But if there is more than one possible meaning then fair enough the court will decide which meaning is best suited/intended for the act as a whole, but there is no meaning of message which relates to "data" in any dictionary I can find.

More importantly the SI requires that the message is sent or received in oral or written form, no oral or written message is received from the GPS satellite so even if a court did decide that message was construed as data received it still isn't oral or written data that has been received-again that's not possible.

What SI are you referring to? I've been referring to S3 of the RTA 2006. In any case. The Sat Nav receives info (i.e. your location) and uses that info to convey a written and oral message to the user (i.e. turn left)

GM228 wrote: »

And another important note, the other point I previously raised is that the communication must be "interactive" as per the SI. An interactive communication is a continuous two-way communication which is not the case with a SatNav and the "person" must be able to send and receive the interactive communication not just the device.

And again I disagree. A sat nav is absolutely interactive. It requires the user to interact with it and input data to function as a navigation device.

foggy_lad

whomitconcerns wrote: »

Problem is nothing you say below would prove you didn't have the phone in your hand. So lot of work for nothing. Coincidence that it was pulled.

The op stated that the rear and side rear windows are heavily tinted so the Gardai would not have been able to see them using a phone unless right beside his car, they looked across and saw him reading the sat nav and assumed he was on his mobile and went in bull-headed.

OP you should get your mobile data for that day and make an appointment to see the superintendent, also don't give the Gardai any original documents like your phone usage data in case they lose it!

ohnonotgmail

foggy_lad wrote: »

The op stated that the rear and side rear windows are heavily tinted so the Gardai would not have been able to see them using a phone unless right beside his car, they looked across and saw him reading the sat nav and assumed he was on his mobile and went in bull-headed.

OP you should get your mobile data for that day and make an appointment to see the superintendent, also don't give the Gardai any original documents like your phone usage data in case they lose it!

phone usage data wont help. the offence is holding a device not using it.

GM228

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I disagree. The Sat Nav is presenting the data it receives to the user in the form of a representation of their location. Yes it goes through some process to convert the data to a dot but so this a text message go through a process to convert the data it receives into a readable form.

Whilst a text message and data may be received in a similar form, that does not in any way make them both a message, they are sent it different ways at different wave lenghts, data a SatNav receives is not a form of "communication" as defined by Irish and EU law, and as per the SI the oral or written message must be an interactive communication. Whilst a message isn't defined what is a communication is in the relevant acts.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What SI are you referring to? I've been referring to S3 of the RTA 2006.

The same one as you, why would you think I may be referring to another SI?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

In any case. The Sat Nav receives info (i.e. your location) and uses that info to convey a written and oral message to the user (i.e. turn left)

A SatNav does not receive your location, you may be surprised by that. No information it receives is displayed to the user in oral or written form.

Most (but not all) SatNavs present their directions via symbols/arrows etc rather than in written form so the written part is very debatable, however voice directions don't count as speech is not considered to be a valid form of electronic communication under Irish law unless the speech has gone through voice recognition software, SatNavs don't use voice recognition software.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

And again I disagree. A sat nav is absolutely interactive. It requires the user to interact with it and input data to function as a navigation device.

Indeed a SatNav is an interactive device, I never said it wasn't, but it's not a communications device and it dosn't enable the user to have an interactive communication, an interactive device and an interactive communication is not the same!

A SatNav is not a communications device and the data it receives is not a form of communication as per other relevant acts which defines what a communication is. Data to a SatNav is not sent via a public available electronic communications service.

“communication” means any information exchanged or conveyed between a finite number of parties by means of a publicly available electronic communications service, but does not include any information conveyed as part of a broadcasting service to the public over the electronic communications network except to the extent that the information can be related to the identifiable subscriber or user receiving the information;

It's also worth nothing that another act does define what a message is in relation to a VAT matter, it says a message is an invoice, credit note, debit note, settlement voucher or document which is sent electronically.

Although not in the same act I would argue that it has relevance because a text message, MMS message, e-mail etc could be considered to be a document.

But I think it's safe to assume that the literal meaning of "message" is the intended meaning in the relevant act and would be something like:-

Collins Dictionary wrote:

a communication, usually brief, from one person or group to another

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:

​short ​piece of ​information that you give to a ​person when you cannot ​speak to them ​directly:

For the act to be applicable a device must be:-

A "communication device" (which a SatNav isn't), with which a person is capable of making or receiving a call or performing an interactive "communication" function (which a person can't do with a SatNav and and directions given by a SatNav don't count as per the definition of a communication).

It's also worth nothing that as the SI distinguished between a "call" and "an interactive communication" function it's safe to assume that a message under the interactive communication heading is an SMS, MMS or e-mail.

At this stage if we still can't agree I'll agree to disagree wirh you!

foggy_lad

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

phone usage data wont help. the offence is holding a device not using it.

So they seen him holding a device that they can't prove was a phone through heavily tinted glass in a moving vehicle in traffic?

MarkAnthony

foggy_lad wrote: »

So they seen him holding a device that they can't prove was a phone through heavily tinted glass in a moving vehicle in traffic?

They're obviously yanking the OPs chain a bit. Presumably something was done to annoy Mr. and Ms. Plod, they're annoying back. This thread was answered By Fred and expanded upon by Carawaystick in the first few minutes/hours of it going up.

I'm not trying to stifle the discussion just pointing out it's a fairly simple answer. My gut reaction is it probably isn't in the best faith but the OP is going to have to waste a day going along and arguing his case if he doesn't want the points.

ohnonotgmail

foggy_lad wrote: »

So they seen him holding a device that they can't prove was a phone through heavily tinted glass in a moving vehicle in traffic?

i dont think you understand. their evidence will be that they seen the op holding something that looked like a mobile phone. The OP will testify otherwise. the judge will then make his mind up as to who is telling the truth. its not an episode of CSI.

Kepler 186f

Based on what you say you weren't committing the offence of "holding a mobile phone while driving". I personally would not pay the fine.
Option 1) Depending on the time status of receiving the ticket, write into the Superintendent of the Garda Station responsible for the alleged offence location appealing the ticket. If you're more pressed for time, ring ahead and request a meeting.
Failing that there's Option 2) If you just don't pay the ticket you will be summonsed to Court where you can state your innocence and produce whatever evidence you can to support same, however this obviously will cost you the days lost wages. But on principal if I didn't commit an offence, I wouldn't accept guilt by paying the fine. While the fine costs 80euro and 2 penalty points I think, if found guilty in Court both will increase

2012paddy2012

Go to court and tell the truth.
That's the way the system works. No need to be a drama queen.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.