Liar Liar pants on fire...

Dinging

Ennis district court judge convicts 2 speeders who reckon they never received fixed penalty notices. Judge was having none of it and calls one one lad a liar. Convicts 1 year ban, 750 fine and 5 penalty points...ouch.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/nothing-as-appalling-as-a-liar-driver-committed-perjury-judge-1.2928295

Meanwhile in Killarney district judge throws out 42 cases, again all alleged speeders never received their penalty notices.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/judge-reluctantly-dismisses-majority-of-42-speeding-cases-1.2927721

Something wrong here with such an anomaly between judges for basically the same offence. Hope there is room for appeal for those convicted as this seems a little harsh.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

Cee-Jay-Cee

Somehow I don't agree. I hope they appeal it and they increase the fine and disqualification period.

Everyone has jumped on the 'I didn't get the notice bandwagon' I'd say in reality a minuscule % of notices get lost but nothing on the scale being highlighted in court cases and people are basically lying in court to get away with it.

Vic_08

If only somebody invented a way of recording the delivery of mail. :rolleyes:

Just another example of the complete joke that is the Irish legal system. The important stuff is done right though, the pigs don't go hungry, the troughs are always full.

Ferrari3600

^ Yep.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfMwWLnpgGw

Say no more.

colm_mcm

That Judge Duncan is just a loose cannon. He gives driving bans for parking offences.

Micky 32

I saw once where a judge dismissed a speeding fine because the defendent said he got the fine and didn't bother/forgot to pay it. The judge said he was sick of people saying they didn't get the fines in the post. He let him off because he told the truth that he got the fine.

80sDiesel

Vic_08 wrote: »

If only somebody invented a way of recording the delivery of mail. :rolleyes:

Just another example of the complete joke that is the Irish legal system. The important stuff is done right though, the pigs don't go hungry, the troughs are always full.

Why is it a complete joke if justice was served.

Pete67

Fair play to the judge in my opinion, he is obviously fed up with people lying in court to avoid a conviction. Saying that, why can't notices be sent by registered post, increase the statutory fine if necessary to cover any increased cost.

Why would you feel sorry for those convicted OP, firstly they were speeding and got caught, secondly they chose to game the system by lying in court. In my opinion they deserve what they got. They also could have little to complain about if they were charged and convicted with perjury, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon unfortunately.

wonski

Vic_08 wrote: »

If only somebody invented a way of recording the delivery of mail. :rolleyes:

Just another example of the complete joke that is the Irish legal system. The important stuff is done right though, the pigs don't go hungry, the troughs are always full.

In reality signature on delivery means that something was delivered. You could always claim that the envelope was empty, a housemate signed for it and lost it or you angry ex threw it into the bin.

Just a thought...

hullaballoo

The District Courts operate in a bizarre little bubble where whatever the individual judges make decisions based on whatever side of the bed they got out of. Sometimes the judges are internally consistent but not always.

They do not apply the law in most cases, they just do whatever takes their fancy. No one takes traffic offences seriously because the majority don't realise it's a criminal record, so I suppose few would be bothered appealing a fine but if I was being asked to advise, I would be saying appeal it.

uck51js9zml2yt

I like Zaidan in Naas...Just because he put Daly in her box

colm_mcm

Daniela Dead Penlight wrote: »

I like Zaidan in Naas...Just because he put Daly in her box

He has blood on his hands with the inisowen tragedy though.

Cheensbo

colm_mcm wrote: »

He has blood on his hands with the inisowen tragedy though.

And tries to wash it off by going outrageously hard on first time offenders for trivial crimes.

But, let's the 100+ convictions club off with the poor box.

Loves seeing his own name in the paper

flutered

Vic_08 wrote: »

If only somebody invented a way of recording the delivery of mail. :rolleyes:

Just another example of the complete joke that is the Irish legal system. The important stuff is done right though, the pigs don't go hungry, the troughs are always full.

what happened to regestered post

marno21

A year ban for 133km/h in a 120km/h zone on the M18 at Crusheen.

What the ****

Kristopherus

marno21 wrote: »

A year ban for 133km/h in a 120km/h zone on the M18 at Crusheen.

What the ****

Proper order and the liar should be done for perjury as well:mad:.

colm_mcm

Innocent until proven guilty and all that. Judge is a tool, but to be fair maybe this will make people think twice about saying they never got the letter.

ml100

Yes but system is wrong, if this guy had not of paid the road tax fine he would have got off completely, so the message is the bigger the scumbag the more likely you are to get off!

Buffman

The lost in the post excuse will soon be a thing of the past when the new law starts to filter through. The only way out of it then will be to avoid the summons. From another thread:

Buffman wrote: »

A few changes coming down the line with this bill the Dail passed yesterday.............

5: If you don't pay the fixed penalty, when you get the court summons from a Garda, you'll then have until 7 days before court date to pay double the original fine. If you do, the case will be dropped. (So an end to the 'lost in the post' defence I suppose)

flutered

Buffman wrote: »

The lost in the post excuse will soon be a thing of the past when the new law starts to filter through. The only way out of it then will be to avoid the summons. From another thread:

but is it not up to the prosecution to prove that it was delivered, which make signed for essential

marno21

marno21 wrote: »

A year ban for 133km/h in a 120km/h zone on the M18 at Crusheen.

What the ****

Harsh on the face of it but not quite the whole story:

In evidence yesterday, Mr Sutton said he did not receive the notice in the post. However, Sgt Molloy said a separate Garda notice was sent to Mr Sutton in relation to having no tax on the same date, and that was paid by him.
Sgt Molloy said: “I issued two tickets - one for speeding and one for tax. The tax incurs no penalty points, the speeding does. The tax was paid, the speeding wasn’t.”
Mr Sutton said he did not receive a notice for tax either.
Judge Durcan intervened to remind him he was under oath, and that not telling the truth would be committing perjury. He said: “Do you want to reconsider the replies you have already given.”
Mr Sutton said: “I was mistaken about the tax. I remember paying the tax.”

Buffman

flutered wrote: »

but is it not up to the prosecution to prove that it was delivered, which make signed for essential

The summons (which I guess will now include the increased fine also) will be hand delivered to you in person by a Garda, who can then give evidence in court that you got it.

hullaballoo

Buffman wrote: »

The lost in the post excuse will soon be a thing of the past when the new law starts to filter through. The only way out of it then will be to avoid the summons. From another thread:

IMO, that doesn't change anything. They have ballsed it up again. If you have to pay 2x the original fine, then you are being punished for not paying the original fine and you can still go to court and swear that you never received the original fine and it has to be struck out unless the State can adduce evidence you actually received the original fine.

What should have been done is that you have until n days before the Court date to pay the original fine amount. That would put the "I didn't receive the fine" argument to bed. Things will be as you were under the provision as enacted.

flutered wrote: »

but is it not up to the prosecution to prove that it was delivered, which make signed for essential

The way it works at the moment (and will work like this until they cop on and send the fines by registered post) is that there is a presumption that the fine was delivered once it issued from the AGS computer place. The presumption puts the onus of proof on the Defendant/Accused.

In order to discharge the onus, all you need to do is adduce evidence you didn't receive the fine and that is generally done by swearing on the Holy Bible/Koran/Old Testament or taking a solemn oath (Atheists) and giving oral testimony that you didn't receive the fine.

Obviously, as with the lad here, if you lie on oath, there are severe consequences such as perjury charges (and, of course, eternal damnation.)

Red Kev

If the Gardai have to hand out every summons it'll just be worse. What's nneded is this:

• Caught speeding (or whatever the offence, littering, TV licence etc. etc).
• Fine arrives in post. Pay within 56 days. No doubling of fine.
• You don't pay, you go to court. You can still pay up to 5 working days before the court.
• Arrive in court, offer to pay penalty + €30 and that's that.
• Don't show up in court "because the letter didn't arrive" then you get fined the original amount + €100. The money is removed in 10 instalments from your PAYE/SW payment.
• You don't like that, then show up to your local courthouse and agree to have the fine paid in installments from your PAYE/SW payments upo to a max of 40 weeks.
• You decide not to pay and go to court, then the money is removed anyway.

It's the same shower of people always showing up saying that they never got it, innocent s the day is long. The proof is in the photograph or Garda evidence, the State shouldn't be fcuking around with time wasters like this. Time for them to grow up.

Buffman

hullaballoo wrote: »

IMO, that doesn't change anything. They have ballsed it up again. If you have to pay 2x the original fine, then you are being punished for not paying the original fine and you can still go to court and swear that you never received the original fine and it has to be struck out unless the State can adduce evidence you actually received the original fine.

Ye, as it's the district court I suppose there's no way to know how some of them will judge it. As we've seen with this case and others, there's no guarantee the case will be struck out. Seems to be more dependent on which side of the bed the judge got out of that morning.

But, yes I agree this new law seems to be over complicated when all they needed to do was register the letter.

hullaballoo wrote: »

What should have been done is that you have until n days before the Court date to pay the original fine amount. That would put the "I didn't receive the fine" argument to bed.

Ye, that's the trouble with the system of legal 'blackmail' that's in place at the moment. I've never agreed with people being 'blackmailed' into not going to court by the threat of bigger fines and more points.

Whatever about a small increase in the fine to cover costs, given that penalty points are supposed to be about safety, I don't think it's justifiable to increase penalty points in court. Did the offence somehow get more dangerous?

hi5

The guards also need to give receipts at the station when documents are produced, my brother had to go to court for allegedly not producing documents when he actually did produce them at the local station.

Grahamer666

Something really has to be done in relation to the issuing of points and fines. I was pulled on the Naas road about 5 months ago for doing 70km/h. The Garda didn't ask for my licence and i still have not gotten anything in the post regards points or a fine. So will i be labelled a liar by a judge if i happen to have to appear in court in the future for non-payment?

cml387

hullaballoo wrote: »

Obviously, as with the lad here, if you lie on oath, there are severe consequences such as perjury charges (and, of course, eternal damnation.)

I was taught in the penny catechism that committing perjury was not only a mortal sin, but a reserved sin as well, which meant only a bishop (or higher) could give absolution.

But I do see how that may not be the deterrent it used to be.;)

Tigger

marno21 wrote: »

A year ban for 133km/h in a 120km/h zone on the M18 at Crusheen.

What the ****

There's more to this story, guard normally won't give chase for 133 on a motorway
Chased him down to give a bollocking and guy had no tax
Issued tickets and the guy decided to lie
So judge did him

Tigger

Grahamer666 wrote: »

Something really has to be done in relation to the issuing of points and fines. I was pulled on the Naas road about 5 months ago for doing 70km/h. The Garda didn't ask for my licence and i still have not gotten anything in the post regards points or a fine. So will i be labelled a liar by a judge if i happen to have to appear in court in the future for non-payment?

The guy was lying and he admitted it
If you ever go down that road you stick to the story

If you didn't get anticket and he called you a liar youd tell him you weren't a liar

2forjoy

Drivers are going to have to start taking this stuff seriously cos too many lives are been lost on our roads .