Minor motoring conviction

Special Circumstances

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

I don't think anybody mentioned a "conviction on one's licence".
It's simply a Conviction for a Motoring Offence.
Still have to inform Insurance Company at renewal time.

Indeed I think something may have been lost in translation along the way. A pity the OP didn't hire a professional who could have cleared this up for him.... wait a minute...

richy

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

I don't think anybody mentioned a "conviction on one's licence".
It's simply a Conviction for a Motoring Offence.
Still have to inform Insurance Company at renewal time.

Wouldnt even mind having to inform the insurance company at renewal time. Issue is I was supposed to inform them that their was a conviction pending when I renewed two weeks ago.

Seems stupid but that is what the assumptions part of the Aviva contract states. Should be innocent until guilty id imagine. Its because I never informed them before I went to court that I now have to cancel a newly renewed policy to avoid having a non disclosure cancellation that ****s up my insurance forever.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Why was it a court appearance over the brake lights there is a fixed penalty for that. Was it due to drugs that it was added.

Whole thing smells very fishy is there anything left out?


How would there be a conviction on ones licence as no points have been added I understand for certain things but a minor light defect which can occur at any time.would suggest as others have get looking into it further.

Was there other factors you are not providing and was the car defective for some time.

I would class no brake lights as serious but if fixed right away there should be no issue and most petrol stations have bulbs obviously if it's a brake switch that would have to be fitted.

Nothing fishy at all. I could have said I was in court for just the brake lights but admitted the other charges. There should be a fixed notice penalty. A day in court and the cost of the solicitor etc is crazy for the offence.

Literally took 30 seconds to fix the brake light issue once the mechanic knew what it was. The brake lights charge could have been added on because of the cannabis. Its what makes sense but still very harsh IMO.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

It might be seen in this particular case that as the amount of drugs found was too small to get a conviction "somebody" had a word in the Judge's ear just before the motoring case.......

......the Judge then possibly ignored the fact that there was really only a single motoring-related offence (especially as it would appear to be simply a faulty brake light switch).

Dunno about the whole cloaks and daggers talking but when the judge said he was applying the probation act the garda inspector stood up and tried to not get it applied for me.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Indeed I think something may have been lost in translation along the way. A pity the OP didn't hire a professional who could have cleared this up for him.... wait a minute...

AFAIK, my solicitor is well known and was recommended to me by two different people seperately, one of whom was recommended him by the legal aid board.

Special Circumstances

richy wrote: »

AFAIK, my solicitor is well known and was recommended to me by two different people seperately, one of whom was recommended him by the legal aid board.

Yet... do you actually know what the actual convictions are?
From your responses to other posters queries it all seems a little vague.

richy

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Yet... do you actually know what the actual convictions are?
From your responses to other posters queries it all seems a little vague.

How are the responses vague? I have said multiple times what my chargers were.

I said I got the probation act for cannabis possession and 2 convictions. One for each brake light not working. Here is the relevant legislation. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print

If you actually read the thread properly you wouldn't need to ask if I know what my convictions were for. Everyone has been pretty helpful, no need to come into the thread late and start saying I'm being elusive when all I'm looking for is advice.

Special Circumstances

richy wrote: »

How are the responses vague? I have said multiple times what my chargers were.

I said I got the probation act for cannabis possession and 2 convictions. One for each brake light not working. Here is the relevant legislation. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1963/si/189/made/en/print

If you actually read the thread properly you wouldn't need to ask if I know what my convictions were for. Everyone has been pretty helpful, no need to come into the thread late and start saying I'm being elusive when all I'm looking for is advice.

Hahahhaha.
Come on man, you're not exactly raging against the stereotype here.


There are various "grades" for every pretty much every crime.
Insurer asks you what the conviction is. Is it " driving defective vehicle"? Is it "dangerous driving"? Is it "driving without due consideration"

"I didn't check my car for pull-me-over-garda stuff before carrying drugs" is not an actual name of any conviction that can be put on a licence.

I think this little wake up call may have come too late for you.

Special Circumstances

I think we know why nobody knows the actual conviction you get for this.... nobody has ever been convicted of it except maybe as some kinda court inside joke.


Where a person is charged with a contravention during lighting-up hours of these Regulations, it shall be a good defence to show—

(i) that the contravention arose from a defect in the lighting or reflectors, and

(ii) that the vehicle was, as soon as practicable after the defect became known, being towed to the nearest safe place so as to avoid danger to other traffic.


Weakest legislation ever. Surely no sane sober solicitor would allow a client be convicted under this except as part of a deal to avoid something else.

Pro Hoc Vice

coylemj wrote: »

You can't be fined without a conviction in contrast to the application of the probation act which (for record purposes) is a conviction but there's no fine.

S 1.1 (i) of Probation back is even though convicted the matter will be dismissed so is not a conviction

1.—(1) Where any person is charged before a court of summary jurisdiction with an offence punishable by such court, and the court thinks that the charge is proved, but is of opinion that, having regard to the character, antecedents, age, health, or mental condition of the person charged, or to the trivial nature of the offence, or to the extenuating circumstances under which the offence was committed, it is inexpedient to inflict any punishment or any other than a nominal punishment, or that it is expedient to release the offender on probation, the court may, without proceeding to conviction, make an order either—

(i) dismissing the information or charge; or

Special Circumstances

PHV, you certainly seem more experienced and knowledgeable in these things... say there is a drop down menu, a select number of driving convictions.
What would this faulty brake lights be classified as?

For example "driving like a FF minister against the flow of traffic on a motorway" would surely be classed as "dangerous driving" or "reckless" etc etc.

What could be the relevant umbrella term for faulty brake lights? It seems to have passed the OP by for some reason cough cough cough...

richy

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Hahahhaha.
Come on man, you're not exactly raging against the stereotype here.


There are various "grades" for every pretty much every crime.
Insurer asks you what the conviction is. Is it " driving defective vehicle"? Is it "dangerous driving"? Is it "driving without due consideration"

"I didn't check my car for pull-me-over-garda stuff before carrying drugs" is not an actual name of any conviction that can be put on a licence.

I think this little wake up call may have come too late for you.

What stereotype and what exactly is proving this stereotype?

It appears you do not know what you are on about so stop talking about various grades for the insurance etc. They will not quote with two convictions, even for these small ones.

Being a cannabis user has nothing to do with the insurance issue so stop bringing it up to try and get little digs in.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I think we know why nobody knows the actual conviction you get for this.... nobody has ever been convicted of it except maybe as some kinda court inside joke.


Where a person is charged with a contravention during lighting-up hours of these Regulations, it shall be a good defence to show—

(i) that the contravention arose from a defect in the lighting or reflectors, and

(ii) that the vehicle was, as soon as practicable after the defect became known, being towed to the nearest safe place so as to avoid danger to other traffic.


Weakest legislation ever. Surely no sane sober solicitor would allow a client be convicted under this except as part of a deal to avoid something else.

Inside joke. You are hilarious.

You get a solicitor to have a quick look at your case and plead mitigation. These are a strict liability offence. If you want to have a lawyer look into your case in a lot of detail, it will cost you a lot. The reason I didnt is because I did not expect these convictions to have such a big impact on insurance.

Special Circumstances wrote: »

PHV, you certainly seem more experienced and knowledgeable in these things... say there is a drop down menu, a select number of driving convictions.
What would this faulty brake lights be classified as?

For example "driving like a FF minister against the flow of traffic on a motorway" would surely be classed as "dangerous driving" or "reckless" etc etc.

What could be the relevant umbrella term for faulty brake lights? It seems to have passed the OP by for some reason cough cough cough...

There is no relevant umbrella term for faulty brake lights. The offence was "No rear right lamp mechanically propelled vehicle" (+ left) according to the fine I got in the post yesterday.

If it makes you feel better, I will PM you the case #, file #, my blood type as well as my dietary habits.

It may give you access to all the information that you seem to crave for no other reason than to just be a dick.

Big Nasty

Too lit up to light up? :pac:

Sorry, couldn't resist. If you got an FPN for the offence(s) and pay same there wouldn't be any conviction.

richy

Big Nasty wrote: »

Too lit up to light up? :pac:

Sorry, couldn't resist. If you got an FPN for the offence(s) and pay same there wouldn't be any conviction.

Unfortunately there is no FPN for this offence.

Big Nasty

richy wrote: »

Unfortunately there is no FPN for this offence.

IMO, and I could well be wrong, each offence should be treated individually. I.e. I would have thought you'd get an FPN (and chance to pay same) for the tail light offences and the drug offence treated separately. I don't see how the light offences can carry conviction for something so trivial. I'm guessing Special Circumstances may be thinking along the same lines, hence his questions.

I think you're only option is to talk to a solicitor re the tail light offences. I know engaging cost of same is expensive but will more than likely work out a lot cheaper than your insurance the next few years. I'd fight it tbh as there are some insurance co's who will not quote if you EVER had a driving related conviction.

richy

Big Nasty wrote: »

IMO, and I could well be wrong, each offence should be treated individually. I.e. I would have thought you'd get an FPN (and chance to pay same) for the tail light offences and the drug offence treated separately. I don't see how the light offences can carry conviction for something so trivial. I'm guessing Special Circumstances may be thinking along the same lines, hence his questions.

I think you're only option is to talk to a solicitor re the tail light offences. I know engaging cost of same is expensive but will more than likely work out a lot cheaper than your insurance the next few years. I'd fight it tbh as there are some insurance co's who will not quote if you EVER had a driving related conviction.

You are right about the cost over time. I just dont know exactly what I can appeal on. Anyway I will call the solicitor on Monday.

Its stupid that its not a FPN, I looked into it a couple months ago and read a thread about it. They belleved that it was one of these things that just got lost when making the law around FPN's Penalty points etc.

richy

I spoke to a lawyer. She said its been a while since she dealt with a brake light conviction but she said the only way to win is that either 1) the guard doesnt show or 2) he doesnt bring the relevant legislation with him.

She said 2) happens quite often but from asking on another thread it was something lawyers were doing for a while apparently and that now a sergeant will hand in all the relevant legislation at the start of each court session so I dont know if I really have a chance.

The solicitor used the words "roll of a dice" and "dont want to turn away business but" so I am not sure if its worth the 400ish euro it will cost.

If it was the case that the sergeant didnt hand up the relevant legislation I would, but it appears that this little loophole has been closed since.

richy

Update for anyone looking for info in the future. I contacted someone I know who used to work for Aviva and because my policy was a renewal and not a new policy, I was under no obligation to inform them about the pending convictions and I can now inform them that I was convicted and am appealing it.

So no threat of non disclosure. Thanks for all the advice and Ill update it again if there is any/when im in court for appealing it.

Special Circumstances

richy wrote: »

Update for anyone looking for info in the future. I contacted someone I know who used to work for Aviva and because my policy was a renewal and not a new policy, I was under no obligation to inform them about the pending convictions and I can now inform them that I was convicted and am appealing it.

So no threat of non disclosure. Thanks for all the advice and Ill update it again if there is any/when im in court for appealing it.

Apologies for previous badgering - it just sounded so weird that getting caught on the one occasion for a single fault which led to both brake lights being on, put you in a similar position to having 2 DUIs or dangerous driving convictions. Jesus it's even possible to get away with points for driving the wrong way on the motorway.

It was just inconceivable to me that this wouldn't have been taken care of with points and a small fine. Pretty bonkers stuff, especially considering the legislation itself seems to allow a fairly straight forward defence.

Just another day in the magic world of Irish legal system I guess. There was a time when your result would probably have been counted as a good result considering the other charge. Maybe it still is overall but it's not a great country to be uninsurable in.

richy

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Apologies for previous badgering - it just sounded so weird that getting caught on the one occasion for a single fault which led to both brake lights being on, put you in a similar position to having 2 DUIs or dangerous driving convictions. Jesus it's even possible to get away with points for driving the wrong way on the motorway.

It was just inconceivable to me that this wouldn't have been taken care of with points and a small fine. Pretty bonkers stuff, especially considering the legislation itself seems to allow a fairly straight forward defence.

Just another day in the magic world of Irish legal system I guess. There was a time when your result would probably have been counted as a good result considering the other charge. Maybe it still is overall but it's not a great country to be uninsurable in.

No prob. It's still a big issue for a new policy but with my current company (for the moment at least) it isnt. I found out why it increases insurance so much. When declaring convictions there are a limited options in the drop down menu so to speak (for the brokers/insurance company employee).

The only one that a defective brake light would fit into is the dangerously defective vehicle. People will have differing opinions on whether it should fit in there but that is the way it is currently.

There should be points and fine for it instead of a conviction and a fine. Stupid gap in the system. Your defence suggestion I think is actually quite valid. Good defence should be that 1) the vehicle was defective (and not purposely missing brake lights I presume) and 2) that you got it towed to nearest available safe space. Now I didnt get it towed but I did get stopped 900 metres from my house according to google maps. From what I read online, it is a really common fault in a Peugeot 206 to have a faulty brake switch as it is above the passenger footwell and people knock it loose with their feet. AFAIK, most cars it is under the drivers steering column.

Anyone know of a way to get this information in an official way to present as part of my defense?

Plus, from what I can see you guys are also right about how it should only be one charge. I think (but not positive) that this is the offence I committed: The lamps shall be actuated by the application of the service brake, and when so actuated shall show a red light to the rear of the vehicle.

To me (and all of ye) it says brake lamps not brake lamp or mention right or left lamp so I think I may have been charged twice for the same offence.

Thing is though I am not sure if this is "new evidence". I don't know really but from what I have seen on tv lol you need new evidence to successfully appeal.

I can probably successfully appeal one charge (seeing as it was a double)but I don't know if I can win using the legislation as it was available to my solicitor in first instance.

Went to fix recognaise today. Cost a 100 euro for the solicitor to go. About 5/60 people had a solicitor. I was the only one wearing a suit too. I should have just done it myself. My lawyer literally spoke for 5 secs although they did fill out all the necessary legal work etc.

Special Circumstances

richy wrote: »

No prob. It's still a big issue for a new policy but with my current company (for the moment at least) it isnt. I found out why it increases insurance so much. When declaring convictions there are a limited options in the drop down menu so to speak (for the brokers/insurance company employee).

The only one that a defective brake light would fit into is the dangerously defective vehicle. People will have differing opinions on whether it should fit in there but that is the way it is currently.

Again, in my own head I was picturing the same fairly limited amount of things in that list "DUI" "dangerous driving" "defective vehicle".
Your brake lights thing would be somewhere around the seriousness of bald tyres in my amateur opinion (possibly less serious unless someone crashed into the back of you while your lights were defective). But you don't see people with bald tyres getting much more than points and a fine.
So yeah - it made no sense for you to be treated as if you had done donuts in the school yard at lunchtime.
All of which is of little use to you unfortunately, as the law is an ass yet again here.

richy

Special Circumstances wrote: »

Again, in my own head I was picturing the same fairly limited amount of things in that list "DUI" "dangerous driving" "defective vehicle".
Your brake lights thing would be somewhere around the seriousness of bald tyres in my amateur opinion (possibly less serious unless someone crashed into the back of you while your lights were defective). But you don't see people with bald tyres getting much more than points and a fine.
So yeah - it made no sense for you to be treated as if you had done donuts in the school yard at lunchtime.
All of which is of little use to you unfortunately, as the law is an ass yet again here.

I think bald tyres would be fair. Do you know if it is 2 penalty points per bald tyre or just for the whole lot? Basically, trying to think of as much info/comparisons for my barrister as possible. Whether relevant or not.

coylemj

OP, you were represented by a solicitor in the District Court where you pleaded guilty, what will be your grounds for an appeal?

richy

coylemj wrote: »

OP, you were represented by a solicitor in the District Court where you pleaded guilty, what will be your grounds for an appeal?

Is it possible to argue you should have only been charged once?

Or is it possible to argue about the legislation meant that I could have had a good defence in first instance and shouldnt have pled guilty?

I dont know, im not a lawyer.

richy

Just an update. Got a barrister which only cost me 250 compared to 330 for the solicitor for the initial hearing. Makes no sense to me how a barrister and their council cost me less.

Even had a 15 min meeting with them a couple days before the case. My initial lawyer talked to me for less than 5 mins in the courthouse before the case.

Anyway, my barrister rang the guard. He said once the drug charges were dealt with that he didnt care about the brake light charges. So had to go to court, guard didnt turn up or pleaded no contest and I got the charges dismissed.

Funny story. A woman was up on no insurance. She stood up in the public gallery area waving at the judge saying can i speak. So she went up to the dock and started to explain to the judge that she had no insurance because the car wasnt hers. The judge said something about it being illegal to allow someone to drive their car without insurance (i think thats what he was saying at least). She responded with "but they didnt know I took it", followed by the judge saying that taking the car without permission is a bigger deal and she was digging a hole. Lols were had.

Shannon757

richy wrote: »

Just an update. Got a barrister which only cost me 250 compared to 330 for the solicitor for the initial hearing. Makes no sense to me how a barrister and their council cost me less.

Even had a 15 min meeting with them a couple days before the case. My initial lawyer talked to me for less than 5 mins in the courthouse before the case.

Anyway, my barrister rang the guard. He said once the drug charges were dealt with that he didnt care about the brake light charges. So had to go to court, guard didnt turn up or pleaded no contest and I got the charges dismissed.

Funny story. A woman was up on no insurance. She stood up in the public gallery area waving at the judge saying can i speak. So she went up to the dock and started to explain to the judge that she had no insurance because the car wasnt hers. The judge said something about it being illegal to allow someone to drive their car without insurance (i think thats what he was saying at least). She responded with "but they didnt know I took it", followed by the judge saying that taking the car without permission is a bigger deal and she was digging a hole. Lols were had.

Good for you OP. That other one though