Nearly 80% of Fixed Penalty Notices not upheld at court

share_bear

Hi,

I have read that almost 80% of Fixed Penalty notices for speeding offence are not upheld by a judge.

I was wondering on what basis these are typically overturned?

Thanks

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

share_bear

And that kills the whole issue? It is not dealt with for the "first" time at the court?
If it is that simple, why doesn't everybody just ignore them?

brian_t

share_bear wrote: »

And that kills the whole issue? It is not dealt with for the "first" time at the court?
If it is that simple, why doesn't everybody just ignore them?

I suppose lying under oath is not 'that simple' for everyone.

NUTLEY BOY

brian_t wrote: »

I suppose lying under oath is not 'that simple' for everyone.

I take the view that the prosecution's responsibilities should extend to making sure that the correct papers are actually served on the defendant and within the correct time frame. Otherwise, you are denying the defendant a fair chance to deal with the matter within the prescribed time limits.

It is never satisfactory or acceptable to expect a defendant to suffer the risk of prosecutorial maladministration.

If the prosecution cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that the original notice was served and in proper time the case should always be bounced.

nuac

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

I take the view that the prosecution's responsibilities should extend to making sure that the correct papers are actually served on the defendant and within the correct time frame. Otherwise, you are denying the defendant a fair chance to deal with the matter within the prescribed time limits.

It is never satisfactory or acceptable to expect a defendant to suffer the risk of prosecutorial maladministration.

If the prosecution cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that the original notice was served and in proper time the case should always be bounced.

Imho the legislation should have provided for service of the notice by registered post, with a provision for personal service where regd post not accepted.

Reg post is expensive and time consuming, but it would save DJs having to assess some of the evidence tendered in court. It is amazing how much post is "never delivered or lost".

hullaballoo

Yes, given that these are criminal matters, there really ought to be more of a burden on the State to prove actual service of the FPNs rather than relying on a presumption that something put in a letter box was then delivered - even if there is authority to say that such a presumption exists, it is amongst the flimsiest out there and rightly so.

If it is too expensive to get An Post (a State-owned company) to administer the service of FPNs by some sort of tracked post efficiently and with minimal additional cost, there is something very wrong with that service and perhaps putting it out to tender might achieve a better result. It's a total false economy to scrimp on an important procedural step that ensures fairness to the accused as well as enabling successful prosecutions when you are spending huge amounts on funding the RSA and advertising left, right and centre about the dangers of speeding.

(In relation to the 80% of summonses being thrown out, I wonder about the extent to which that is manipulated by judges throwing out entire lists after the introduction of privately operated speed traps?)

PaddyWilliams

Jaysus, I feel like a fool now for paying up my fines and accepting the points.

Kimbot

This is just brilliant....

http://www.joe.ie/uncategorized/cork-postman-let-off-the-hook-after-claiming-that-his-speed-fine-got-lost-in-the-post/334737