Driving offence, No insurance, or Licence, or Tax

greenfieldbush

Thank you again for the replies,

And yes, I completely understand im going to get into serious trouble over this.

From responses, almost certain my licences will be taken away, hefty fine, and I will probably have to move out and relocate in order to keep the job. The only thing i do hope for is that I wont get imprisoned so not to taint my thus far clean employment record, and make amends with my mother.

In regards to what Ive done, im willing to accept whatever comes, and even though you dont know me, I would like to apologize to the people that submitted honest answers on this thread, for helping a**holes like myself.

I have always been a careful driver, never had a single accident in my 5 years of driving. I always showed my best courtesy to everyone, especially pedestrians, cyclists, and other bikers, as I know theyre at risk at most. This is not an excuse, but again, sorry for having such people on the road, I dont know what clouded my thought of judgement.

The responses are mixed, but im concentrated on the worst case ones, so I think its been explained enough.

Please consider this thread closed. If you do wish to add anything constructive that might have been missed in this thread, feel free to PM me.

Again,
Much appreciated.

coylemj

The Gardai will not charge someone with theft of a motor unless they suspected that the car was going to be resold or exported or broken up for parts. In the OP's case the appropriate offence would be S.112 RTA (unauthorised taking) but they can only prosecute if the owner is prepared to testify that he didn't have permission to drive it.

The original legislation governing theft was the Larceny Act 1916 (S.1) which required that the person appropriating the goods was intending 'permanently to deprive the owner thereof'. I have no idea what circumstances were envisaged by the Theft Act 2001 including the prospect of someone taking goods with the intention of 'temporarily' depriving the owner of same.

lifeandtimes

Op people with more convictions than you get away with a lot worsw so for a first time conviction you will receive a fine and may be banned. A good solicitor might use your clean record as a motorcyclist and no prior convictions for anything as a positive and that this was an out of character spur of the moment of madness as to why they think you shouldn't be banned from driving .

If the judge accepts it that's another thing but hopefully your solicitor can swing it for you.

As for job prospects traffic offences don't impact work unless your drive for a living

Sue Pa Key Pa

coylemj wrote:

The Gardai will not charge someone with theft of a motor unless they suspected that the car was going to be resold or exported or broken up for parts. In the OP's case the appropriate offence would be S.112 RTA (unauthorised taking) but they can only prosecute if the owner is prepared to testify that he didn't have permission to drive it.

That's not necessarily true. I've had numerous cases where a family member or boyfriend / girlfriend has taken the car without permission and damaged it (and other people). The only way their insurers will cover the own damage claim is for the owner to report it stolen and most actually do. In those circumstances the Gardai prosecute in the normal fashion.

coylemj

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

That's not necessarily true. I've had numerous cases where a family member or boyfriend / girlfriend has taken the car without permission and damaged it (and other people). The only way their insurers will cover the own damage claim is for the owner to report it stolen and most actually do. In those circumstances the Gardai prosecute in the normal fashion.

I agree with all of that but can't see where it conflicts with my post which you quoted. Which part of my post is 'not necessarily true'?

And note that the OP's situation does not involve an insurance claim so the same dynamics are not in play.

Sue Pa Key Pa

coylemj wrote:

I agree with all of that but can't see where it conflicts with my post which you quoted. Which part of my post is 'not necessarily true'?

I don't want to get in to a row over this but you did say 'Gardai will not:'

coylemj

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

I don't want to get in to a row over this but you did say 'Gardai will not:'

A civilised disagreement about a nuance of the law doesn't constitute a 'row' in my book. When you said that 'the Gardai prosecute in the normal fashion.', did they prosecute for straight theft or S.112 'unauthorised taking'?

You said that the family member had to 'report it stolen' but that's just everyday language used for when a car is taken without permission and does not mean that the Gardai prosecuted the driver for actual theft.

I think you'll find that in the vast majority of cases, the prosecution will have been for S.112. Driving 'without the consent of the owner' is far easier to prove than theft.

4ensic15

Sue Pa Key Pa wrote: »

That's not necessarily true. I've had numerous cases where a family member or boyfriend / girlfriend has taken the car without permission and damaged it (and other people). The only way their insurers will cover the own damage claim is for the owner to report it stolen and most actually do. In those circumstances the Gardai prosecute in the normal fashion.

Once the family member did'nt authorise the taking the insurance liability is avoided. It does not mean the vehicle was actually stolen. In order to prosecute for theft of Section 112 evidence from the family member is needed. Even at that there are defences open to an accused family member. It is a defence to take an article temporarily if it is believed that the woner would have given permission if asked. If I take my flatmates umbrella to go to the shop without asking in the belief that if asked I would have been given permission, it is not theft.

ANXIOUS

Have a look at Jason Byrnes the "comedians" recent case. He did something similar except was banned at the time and only got a€500 fine.

Sue Pa Key Pa

4ensic15 wrote:

Once the family member did'nt authorise the taking the insurance liability is avoided. It does not mean the vehicle was actually stolen. In order to prosecute for theft of Section 112 evidence from the family member is needed. Even at that there are defences open to an accused family member. It is a defence to take an article temporarily if it is believed that the woner would have given permission if asked. If I take my flatmates umbrella to go to the shop without asking in the belief that if asked I would have been given permission, it is not theft.

4ensic15 wrote:

Once the family member did'nt authorise the taking the insurance liability is avoided. It does not mean the vehicle was actually stolen. In order to prosecute for theft of Section 112 evidence from the family member is needed. Even at that there are defences open to an accused family member. It is a defence to take an article temporarily if it is believed that the woner would have given permission if asked. If I take my flatmates umbrella to go to the shop without asking in the belief that if asked I would have been given permission, it is not theft.

I wasn't talking about the liability aspect, I'm aware of that. With regards to the theft section, family members are often quite prepared to make a statement that they expressly forbade the taker from using the car. I've had cases where relationships have ended over such matters. Anyway, this is drifting off topic.

greenfieldbush

Hi all.

Ill probably get alot of heat from people who judged me earlier on, but i thought I should revive this thread as I have gotten quite a few messages from people who wanted to know what happened as they are in the same situation. If you feel like being judgmental, please keep it to yourself. This follow up is simply for any people who are googling the same case scenarios right now.

Please note, I have very little advice on this - so dont take my word as law.

1 - I didnt have a solicitor.
The solicitor I have asked to represent me, forgot, and on the day, didnt show up. I was int he court room only with my mother.

2 - I dressed well.
I was the only person except the solicitors and barristers wearing a suit and tie, and there were good 30-40 people in there, some reeked of weed, some wearing tracksuit bottoms. Not judging, just saying what I saw.

3 - The judge was in a good mood.
He was letting people off with 99 euro fines for mobile phones. 99 euro fines for no seat belt. 99 euro for no tax. I dont think there were any no NCT, or any other ones I can remember.
I was the only one for no insurance + tax + licence.

4 - Outcome.
I got a 200 euro fine, and the 2 penalty points I got during the stop stayed. Nothing else.

I was extremely nervous, close to passing out when I stood up to talk, I wasnt sleeping or eating properly for half a year, thats how nervous I was. I think the judge seen that.

He asked me what my income is, do I work, what my outgoings are. Obviously Im not going to tell you my answers.
I answered, told him it was my first time offence, that I havent used any other transport except a bus or luas for the last 6 months as I was simply too stressed to drive (this isnt made up incase any of you are wondering I made up a sob story). Told him that my commute to and from work takes 8 times longer now using public transport. That I made a stupid mistake, and I feel guilty (could probably tell by my first post).

I do not know if I got lucky, or what happened. Please, dont take any of this as advice of what to do, this is simply my experience, that may put your mind at ease if you are facing something similar.

Alot of the people who wrote to me, said they were in the same situation. My best advice is to go to the court, sit there, and see for yourself how it goes.

Regards.

Captain Obvious

That's a joke of a penalty.

nxbyveromdwjpg

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's a joke of a penalty.

No harm, no foul.

endacl

greenfieldbush wrote: »

He told me to get home ASAP not via motorway, and produce a licence, and insurance within 10 days. Im almost certain the only reason he didnt tow the car was because I had my dog there with me.

This is the bit from the OP that sets off my BS sensor...

martingriff

endacl wrote: »

This is the bit from the OP that sets off my BS sensor...

Haviñg read it through I was sceptical but I do not believe a lawyer would just forget. The judges €99's is not believable and let's not talk about the OP penalty's

mcgucc22

martingriff wrote: »

Haviñg read it through I was sceptical but I do not believe a lawyer would just forget. The judges €99's is not believable and let's not talk about the OP penalty's

And that judge's name? Albert Einstein

gingergirl

Really! Go and jump

pearcider

That's a great result for you OP. Delighted for you. Loving the salty replies in here too from the high horse brigade.

SteM

Lots of 99s in this tale. I think the OP was eating an ice cream when he made this story up.

sexmag

greenfieldbush wrote: »

Hi all.

3 - The judge was in a good mood.
He was letting people off with 99 euro fines for mobile phones. 99 euro fines for no seat belt. 99 euro for no tax. I dont think there were any no NCT, or any other ones I can remember.
I was the only one for no insurance + tax + licence.

4 - Outcome.
I got a 200 euro fine

Shouldn't it have been €297 then?

greenfieldbush wrote: »

the 2 penalty points I got during the stop stayed

Well they were hardly going to go away now

nuac

Mod
Closed for Mod review
Meanwhile OP do not post here until further notice