Court summons for not producing licence, but I did??

KearneyJ22

I'm so confused...

My partner went through a 2 checkpoints, about 100 metres one after the other on 31/07/16. It was a bank holiday. At the first checkpoint they asked for his licence, and done a breath test, which was fine. We then drove on and realised there was another one ahead. We stopped at it and he handed his licence. He had paid for his tax but was awaiting the disk, the guard told him to produce it to the station within 10 days. The guard also highlighted how he had no L plates, or no fully qualified driver with him, that if his sergeant was present he would be fining him for all these things. But said he'd let him off. Then went on discussing why my partners driving on a learner permit for 5 years why not do his full test, my partner explained this.

This was all fine. Around 2 weeks later he got 3 fines in the door one for no tax displayed, one for no L plates, and one for no fully qualified driver. He paid them all.

Then out of nowhere yesterday, my partner got 3 court summons through the post. All for the same thing, not producing a licence at just ONE of these checkpoints.

He produced his licence at both of them? If he didn't why is he only receiving a court date for one? The checkpoints were literally 100 metres away from each other, he presented his licence at both. Not sure what to do about this as I don't think the guards will listen.

GLaDOS

Mod: moved to legal discussion, please take the time to read the local charter

HandsomeDan

Simolar thing happened to me. Was summoned for not producing car docs at garda staion when I had.

Judge ended up giving out to the guard for wasting my time.

I wouldnt worry about it too much.

Little CuChulainn

Easiest thing would be to look for the Garda in question at the station, or his sergeant, and ask why you were summonsed when you produced at the checkpoint.

coylemj

I wouldn't talk to anyone except the Garda who issued the summons, the sergeant won't want to discuss this case at all and it will probably annoy the Garda that you went above him.

This confusion normally happens when someone produces their driving licence at the station but somehow the Garda still issues a summons. In this case it appears that the OP produced the licence on the spot so there was no demand to produce at a Garda station. In which case the OP has no choice but to show up in court, get in the witness box, swear that he produced his licence on the spot and there was no demand to produce at any named Garda station, the judge will then dismiss the summons.

It would be an extravagance of the highest order to engage a solicitor to represent you, this type of issue happens all the time in traffic courts - the place is typically full of mothers and fathers holding driving licences and insurance certs and chasing down Gardai who mistakenly issued summons to their sons and daughters.

Did he produce tax with in 10 days? Looks like clericals error.

KearneyJ22

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Did he produce tax with in 10 days? Looks like clericals error.

Yeah he did.

4ensic15

You should contact the prosecuting guard beforehand and explain. After that go to court and the guard will probably strike out the charge of his own volition.

FortySeven

He has failed to produce a 'valid' licence surely if he does not hold a full licence. Producing a learners permit is not showing he is licenced to drive unaccompanied.

He has failed to produce.

KearneyJ22

FortySeven wrote: »

He has failed to produce a 'valid' licence surely if he does not hold a full licence. Producing a learners permit is not showing he is licenced to drive unaccompanied.

He has failed to produce.

The letter actually states "Driving licence/Learner permit".

FortySeven

KearneyJ22 wrote: »

The letter actually states "Driving licence/Learner permit".

Learner permit would only be valid if accompanied.

KearneyJ22

FortySeven wrote: »

Learner permit would only be valid if accompanied.

Yeah but even so, he produced it. He got a separate fine for driving unaccompanied and paid for that.

Little CuChulainn

That's just nonsense. A Garda would much rather admit a mistake than go to court and have that mistake be read onto the record.

4ensic15

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

That's just nonsense. A Garda would much rather admit a mistake than go to court and have that mistake be read onto the record.

It happens all the time. Nothing is thought of it. The guard will generally have a number of summons returned for the same day. Quite likely a few of them will be strike outs.
Judges get more annoyed at people not talking to the guard beforehand and wasting time with a explanations when the case is called.

Little CuChulainn

4ensic15 wrote: »

It happens all the time. Nothing is thought of it. The guard will generally have a number of summons returned for the same day. Quite likely a few of them will be strike outs.
Judges get more annoyed at people not talking to the guard beforehand and wasting time with a explanations when the case is called.

What i mean is, a Garda would much rather sort an issue out before court than have to admit on the stand that the person did show their licence and was summonsed unnecessarily.

4ensic15

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What i mean is, a Garda would much rather sort an issue out before court than have to admit on the stand that the person did show their licence and was summonsed unnecessarily.

It is no skin off the prosecuting guard's nose. the guard who failed to record the production of the licence will be blamed. The greater problem is that the explanation wastes court time and annoys the judge. Saying strike out takes 10 seconds. Swearing in witnesses and listening to the whole saga can take 5 minutes. Multiply that by 12 and an hour is wasted.

Little CuChulainn

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is no skin off the prosecuting guard's nose. the guard who failed to record the production of the licence will be blamed. The greater problem is that the explanation wastes court time and annoys the judge. Saying strike out takes 10 seconds. Swearing in witnesses and listening to the whole saga can take 5 minutes. Multiply that by 12 and an hour is wasted.

The licence was produced to the prosecuting Garda at the checkpoint.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

slavetothegrind

I was summonsed for not having a valid insurance disc at a checkpoint

Had just got the vehicle and had transferred the insurance

Left old disc in window as the ref number was my insurance ref.

At checkpoint ordered to produce, which i did, and i didn't get a receipt (2nd mistake)

Cue summons.

Off i go to court, see the Guard who stopped me and approach with the evidence that i was indeed insured and all is good

My case is called, i stand up and the guard is in the box telling judge he has received correct paperwork and instantly judge hands down a fine and conviction for non display of insurance!!!!!

Do i get to speak? NO.

Get representation. i have a conviction on my record .

<<Mod: rant removed>>

Technically i was in breach of the law yes. It wasn't a valid disc for the vehicle.
Was i insured? Yes.
Did the judge care? No.


Mod
You could have given evidence yourself and/or employed a solicitor

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

slavetothegrind

Appreciate that Fred, but as i couldn't hear what was going on in court particularly well i did not realise i had a conviction, i thought it was just a fine
And the cost of appealing that was way in excess of paying it.

It was years later i was informed it was a conviction

Look i was stupid, i realise now never ever go to court without representation, you will be ignored.

Lesson learned.

Losty Dublin

Can you clarify what the fixed tickets were issued for and what the summons were issued for as well.

Little CuChulainn

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Appeal what? He had no valid insurance displayed and was convicted for it.

4ensic15

slavetothegrind wrote: »

I was summonsed for not having a valid insurance disc at a checkpoint

Had just got the vehicle and had transferred the insurance

Left old disc in window as the ref number was my insurance ref.

At checkpoint ordered to produce, which i did, and i didn't get a receipt (2nd mistake)

Cue summons.

Off i go to court, see the Guard who stopped me and approach with the evidence that i was indeed insured and all is good

My case is called, i stand up and the guard is in the box telling judge he has received correct paperwork and instantly judge hands down a fine and conviction for non display of insurance!!!!!

Do i get to speak? NO.

Get representation. i have a conviction on my record .

There is nothing fair about court. Justice is a misnomer, it is practice of the law and no more. Beware.

Technically i was in breach of the law yes. It wasn't a valid disc for the vehicle.
Was i insured? Yes.
Did the judge care? No.

You were not in breach of the law technically. You had 10 days to get a disc. It is only an offence not to display a disc more than 10 days after the insurance was arranged. Appeal and have the matter put right.

Little CuChulainn

4ensic15 wrote: »

You were not in breach of the law technically. You had 10 days to get a disc. It is only an offence not to display a disc more than 10 days after the insurance was arranged. Appeal and have the matter put right.

Unfortunately he displayed the old disk for a different car instead of displaying nothing.

Glass fused light

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Unfortunately he displayed the old disk for a different car instead of displaying nothing.

Is there a specific wording in the non display offence to cover having a differernt document displayed?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

4ensic15

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Unfortunately he displayed the old disk for a different car instead of displaying nothing.

Soi what. He did not have to display anything. Only thing he did wrong was obstruct his view with the old disc.

Losty Dublin

Glass fused light wrote: »

Is there a specific wording in the non display offence to cover having a differernt document displayed?

There are two offences. Not having valid Insurance is one, the other is not having a valid Insurance Disc for a vehicle.

It's amazing how many people who get stopped at checkouts having just changed their cars but without paperwork in order, isn't it?

Little CuChulainn

4ensic15 wrote: »

Soi what. He did not have to display anything. Only thing he did wrong was obstruct his view with the old disc.

You don't see any issue with someone displaying an in date disk from a different car? He would have been better off not displaying anything. He's lucky he didn't get a fraud charge too.

4ensic15

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You don't see any issue with someone displaying an in date disk from a different car? He would have been better off not displaying anything. He's lucky he didn't get a fraud charge too.

He was not charged with fraud. He was charged with the non display of a disc in circumstances where he wasn't obliged to display a disc.

Sue Pa Key Pa

Glass fused light wrote: »

Is there a specific wording in the non display offence to cover having a differernt document displayed?

S.I. No. 355 of 1984.

ROAD TRAFFIC (INSURANCE DISC) REGULATIONS, 1984.

The Minister for the Environment in exercise of the powers conferred on him by sections 5 and 11 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (No. 24 of 1961), hereby makes the following Regulations:—
....................................
6. No person shall, either by writing, drawing or in any other matter alter, deface, mutilate or add anything to any insurance disc for any vehicle, nor shall any person exhibit upon any vehicle any insurance disc which has been altered, defaced, mutilated or added to as aforesaid, or upon which the figures or particulars have become illegible or the colour has become altered by fading or otherwise, not shall any person exhibit any colourable imitation of any insurance disc or any insurance disc which has been issued in respect of another vehicle or any insurance disc which has become void nor shall any figures or letters, design or ornamentation be placed near to an insurance disc in such a manner as to render it more difficult to read nor shall anything be exhibited at or near the insurance disc, in such a manner as to render it more difficult to observe an insurance disc on a vehicle when in motion.

Glass fused light

Losty Dublin wrote: »

There are two offences. Not having valid Insurance is one, the other is not having a valid Insurance Disc for a vehicle.

It's amazing how many people who get stopped at checkouts having just changed their cars but without paperwork in order, isn't it?

If stopped I would have been in trouble with the insurance disk for the old car. I had look for and agree price for car, call ins co and agree on transfer date and to pay premium by cr card.
Called back to the garage paid and signed the paper work, call the insurance company to confirm that i now owned the new one and transferd the insurance from the old one, paid the difference. Called back 10 min later to confirm its actioned.
Took all the old disk with me, stuck the old insurance disk in the window so that I had the policy reference and swapped it out when the new disk arrived

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

S.I. No. 355 of 1984.

ROAD TRAFFIC (INSURANCE DISC) REGULATIONS, 1984.
.

Thanks for that.
Thats my learning point for today.

KearneyJ22

Thanks for all the replies! Really helpful.

The only other problem is that when he went and produced his tax within the 10 days, they didn't ask for his licence at the station! Just tax disk.. he has a receipt kind of proof saying he presented the valid tax disk but no licence.

There was nothing about a licence.. no fine, nothing until now 4 months later. He has had a licence the whole time. I'm finding this situation very frustrating. Sorry guys..

KearneyJ22

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Can you clarify what the fixed tickets were issued for and what the summons were issued for as well.

He got fined for not displaying a valid tax disk, No L plates, and driving unaccompanied.

The summons are for driving without a licence, failing to produce a licence, and failing to produce a licence within 10 days. (All at just one of the two checkpoints, 100 metres from each other on the same night.)

Losty Dublin

KearneyJ22 wrote: »

He got fined for not displaying a valid tax disk, No L plates, and driving unaccompanied.

The summons are for driving without a licence, failing to produce a licence, and failing to produce a licence within 10 days. (All at just one of the two checkpoints, 100 metres from each other on the same night.)

Six distinct offences here. The first two are cut and dry ones. Had he a valid drivers permit when he was stopped or not, yes or now? Also, was he accompanied by a fully licenced driver at the time, yes or no?

As a side note, did he pay the fines as a matter of interest?

KearneyJ22

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Six distinct offences here. The first two are cut and dry ones. Had he a valid drivers permit when he was stopped or not, yes or now? Also, was he accompanied by a fully licenced driver at the time, yes or no?

As a side note, did he pay the fines as a matter of interest?

Yes of course he had a valid permit when he was stopped. No he wasn't accompanied. And yes he paid all 3 fines.

The point of this post is why he's being taken to court over not providing a licence. When we hadn't heard anything about a licence until 4 months after the fines. He produced his licence at both checkpoints.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Losty Dublin

KearneyJ22 wrote: »

Yes of course he had a valid permit when he was stopped. No he wasn't accompanied. And yes he paid all 3 fines.

The point of this post is why he's being taken to court over not providing a licence. When we hadn't heard anything about a licence until 4 months after the fines. He produced his licence at both checkpoints.

If he paid the fixed ticket fines then that should be the end of those matters. The summons shouldn't have a bearing on them as they are different offences. At this stage you really should take on a solicitor for legal advice otherwise you may well see himself prosecuted if it goes any further.

juno10353

KearneyJ22 wrote:

The point of this post is why he's being taken to court over not providing a licence. When we hadn't heard anything about a licence until 4 months after the fines. He produced his licence at both checkpoints.

KearneyJ22 wrote:

Yes of course he had a valid permit when he was stopped. No he wasn't accompanied. And yes he paid all 3 fines.

As he was fined for not being accompanied it would appear obvious that licence/permit was presented and seen by guard

KearneyJ22

juno10353 wrote: »

As he was fined for not being accompanied it would appear obvious that licence/permit was presented and seen by guard

Exactly why I am so confused by all of this..

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

KearneyJ22

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Very unusual for 2 checkpoints so close together. More to this than meets the eye.

More to this than meets the eye? And very unusual indeed. Alot of things are very unusual in this world, especially in Dublin. It was a bank holiday, and the first of the two was a breathalyser. I'm sure they had their reasons. So if you wanna take it up with the guards themselves.

I came here for advice.

Mod
Warning: Pls keep it civii. Fred Swanson has no obligation to take anything up with AGS,
Legal advice cannot be given on this forum

CaptainInsano

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Very unusual for 2 checkpoints so close together. More to this than meets the eye.

Take a drive through Summerhill in Dublin.

carzony

Why have the Gardai not started issuing receipts to people who have been asked to produce yet? Very simple idea, police in england have been doing it years.

The guard writes your details down and you have a reminder. The guard will also have a record stating he asked you to produce. This current system is outdated and seems to be sending I would guess hundreds of people to court for nothing each year.

Little CuChulainn

KearneyJ22 wrote: »

More to this than meets the eye? And very unusual indeed. Alot of things are very unusual in this world, especially in Dublin. It was a bank holiday, and the first of the two was a breathalyser. I'm sure they had their reasons. So if you wanna take it up with the guards themselves.

I came here for advice.

The Garda simply made a mistake. There's nothing unusual here. He wrote in his notebook or on the ticket that he asked you to produce licence at the station and when you didn't you were summonsed.

Busyness1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is indeed the case.

slavetothegrind

just to clarify,

Yes i had the old disc in. I accept this is illegal, i know that now and in hindsight it does look ropey.

Fact is i was insured as i changed over the insurance before i moved my newer vehicle an inch.
I produced document from my insurer to confirm the exact time and day this happened. ( a day or so prior to the stop)
I was not trying anything on at all though i see now that by keeping the old disk i did wrong.
I had it there for reference, the insurance reference number in case of accident.

All paperwork was produced within the ten days.

Unfortunately it's years ago now ....

billy few mates

slavetothegrind wrote: »

just to clarify,

Yes i had the old disc in. I accept this is illegal, i know that now and in hindsight it does look ropey.

Fact is i was insured as i changed over the insurance before i moved my newer vehicle an inch.
I produced document from my insurer to confirm the exact time and day this happened. ( a day or so prior to the stop)
I was not trying anything on at all though i see now that by keeping the old disk i did wrong.
I had it there for reference, the insurance reference number in case of accident.

All paperwork was produced within the ten days.

Unfortunately it's years ago now ....

I've done this myself in the past when I've changed my car, but after reading this I know not to do it again. My thinking was while I'm waiting for the new disc to arrive it was better to display a disc which would at least suggest a valid insurance if stopped or if the car was looked at by a Garda or traffic warden while parked, who might otherwise just issue a ticket for not displaying anything.

Busyness1

billy few mates wrote: »

I've done this myself in the past when I've changed my car, but after reading this I know not to do it again. My thinking was while I'm waiting for the new disc to arrive it was better to display a disc which would at least suggest a valid insurance if stopped or if the car was looked at by a Garda or traffic warden while parked, who might otherwise just issue a ticket for not displaying anything.

If you were insured, taxed and nct'd on the date in question and can prove it in court, the vast vast majority of judges will strike it out, they are there for a reason and understand full well the vulnerable situation people are in courts because of legislative nonsense and will not convict for the lack of a piece of paper in transit. It's not your fault the disc was in the post but you were covered, unless there are other circumstances, I really wouldn't worry about it!

slavetothegrind

the sooner we get to the simplicity of it all linked to registration plate and online.
Easier for us and easier for Guards to find the chancers.