Mandatory alcohol testing. Road Traffic Act 2010

iomusicdublin

Is this a loophole for any Garda to authorise the establishment of an MAT checkpoint without the authority to set up an MAT checkpoint?


(9) An authorisation or a copy expressing itself to be such authorisation shall, until the contrary is shown, be sufficient evidence in any proceedings under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2010 of the facts stated in it, without proof of any signature on it or that the signatory was a person entitled under subsection (2) to sign it.

(2) A member of the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of inspector, may, for the purposes of section 4 authorise the establishment of a checkpoint or checkpoints in a public place or places at which members of the Garda Síochána may exercise the powers under subsection (4).

(3) An authorisation shall be in writing and shall specify—

(a) the date on which, and the public place in which, the checkpoint is to be established, and

(b) the hours at any time between which it may be operated.

Victor

iomusicdublin wrote: »

Is this a loophole for any Garda to authorise the establishment of an MAT checkpoint without the authority to set up an MAT checkpoint?

Do you want to explain your thinking?

If you think a garda has faked an authorisation, you can challenge it, e.g. you could say "This signature isn't the signature of the inspector - look at this other signature of the inspector, which is completely different."

iomusicdublin

Victor wrote: »

Do you want to explain your thinking?

If you think a garda has faked an authorisation, you can challenge it, e.g. you could say "This signature isn't the signature of the inspector - look at this other signature of the inspector, which is completely different."

You cannot challenge it. Same way a speed gun doesn't have to prove it is working properly.

(9) An authorisation or a copy expressing itself to be such authorisation shall, until the contrary is shown, be sufficient evidence in any proceedings under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2010 of the facts stated in it, without proof of any signature on it or that the signatory was a person entitled under subsection (2) to sign it.

Peregrinus

iomusicdublin wrote: »

You cannot challenge it. Same way a speed gun doesn't have to prove it is working properly.

(9) An authorisation or a copy expressing itself to be such authorisation shall, until the contrary is shown, be sufficient evidence in any proceedings under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2010 of the facts stated in it, without proof of any signature on it or that the signatory was a person entitled under subsection (2) to sign it.

You can challenge it. The presumption of sufficiency only applies "until the contrary it shown"; it says so right there in the text that you have quoted. You can challenge it by showing the contrary.

iomusicdublin

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can challenge it. The presumption of sufficiency only applies "until the contrary it shown"; it says so right there in the text that you have quoted. You can challenge it by showing the contrary.

Gardai should have this document on site during an MAT for inspection to whomever requests it.

this clearly says it does not matter who signed it or it does not matter if they were entitle to sign it.



without proof of any signature on it

or

that the signatory was a person entitled under subsection (2) to sign it.

GM228

iomusicdublin wrote: »

You cannot challenge it. Same way a speed gun doesn't have to prove it is working properly.

Your missing the point of a statutory presumption, all it does is remove a requirement from the prosecution to give evidence/proof of compliance with the requirements, that compliance is presumed, it is then for the defence to prove the issue of non-compliance either through cross-examination or through direct evidence.

You rebut the presumption.

iomusicdublin wrote: »

Gardai should have this document on site during an MAT for inspection to whomever requests it.

No they do not need to.

iomusicdublin wrote: »

this clearly says it does not matter who signed it or it does not matter if they were entitle to sign it.



without proof of any signature on it

or

that the signatory was a person entitled under subsection (2) to sign it.

Again all this means is the DPP do not need to prove this, but you can rebut the presumption.

iomusicdublin

How can you rebut it?

why does it have this line included?

without proof of any signature on it or that the signatory was a person entitled under subsection (2) to sign it.

I understand the Gardai do not have to have the authorisation, I said they should have it for inspection.

Victor

iomusicdublin wrote: »

How can you rebut it?

Examples would be saying "that signature isn't the signature of that officer, see copies of their signature here" or "that officer wasn't promoted to Inspector until X date, which is after the date of the authorisation."

why does it have this line included?

without proof of any signature on it or that the signatory was a person entitled under subsection (2) to sign it.

To cut down on paperwork and spurious claims.

I understand the Gardai do not have to have the authorisation, I said they should have it for inspection.

It is best to keep the original document at the station, lest it get lost - it seems they tend to be written up at the start of the month with checkpoints for the whole month. Losing it halfway through the month or having some drunk steal / damage it wouldn't be good.

Claw Hammer

The authorisation has to be in court.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/0/B563010CB703B7C0802574CC003BDDCA

The proof of signature issue just means that the Inspector doesn't have to come into Court and say "that is my signature".
The authorisation would be hearsay if the statutory presumption was not there.