Speeding Ticket and Court Appearance.

ButtersSuki

Got a summons today for a court appearance re. a speeding ticket that went past its 56 day payment period without me paying. I didn't ever get the original ticket.....I'm sure I'm going to be greeted with a "sure you didn't" response but I didn't receive it. Had I, I would have paid to avoid this. I was clocked doing 90 in an 80kph zone on a 3 lane roadway at 12 in the afternoon on a quiet day by a partially-hidden Gatso van. I'm annoyed about the whole thing - I'm not a speed merchant by any stretch of the imagination and the road I was caught on is one of those where you really ask yourself why is it just at 80? It's also after a part of the road that goes from 100 to 80.

But not getting the original ticket is the really annoying part for me.

is there any way for me to avoid having to go to court on this? From what I gather I'm potentially subject to a 5 point penalty for this.

Also, am I likely to even be believed by the judge that I didn't get the ticket?

uck51js9zml2yt

Didn't they close the loophole of claiming not receipt by providing you with an option to pay before the court appearance?

beechwood55

Happened to a guy I work with last year. He received the notice, forgot to pay it and got 5 penalty points and a fine in court. Of all the people there he was the only one that admitted he had got the notice and forgot to pay it. All of the other people there said they had not received the notice in the post. 5 penalty points and fines handed out to them all.

endacl

beechwood55 wrote: »

Happened to a guy I work with last year. He received the notice, forgot to pay it and got 5 penalty points and a fine in court. Of all the people there he was the only one that admitted he had got the notice and forgot to pay it. All of the other people there said they had not received the notice in the post. 5 penalty points and fines handed out to them all.

I've a colleague in the same boat. Thought he'd be a fine upstanding citizen and hold his hands up to the offence, pay the fine and be done with it. Now he has to declare a conviction every time he fills out a Garda Vetting form...

ButtersSuki

Mia Thundering Romance wrote: »

Didn't they close the loophole of claiming not receipt by providing you with an option to pay before the court appearance?

First I knew of it was the summons I got today.

I'd take the option you mention but it's not there.

1983ish

No way out of a summons unfortunately.
“I did do it but didn’t get the summons” is your only defence. Take the 3 points and a fine Your at the mercy of the judge on the day.
Good luck
I’ll see you in lane 1 of every low speed limit you go through in the future

GM228

Mia Thundering Romance wrote: »

Didn't they close the loophole of claiming not receipt by providing you with an option to pay before the court appearance?

This only applies to any offence committed after 1st June 2017.

OP, what is the date of the alleged offence?

Rubberchikken

Why speed, which you we're, and then wonder if there's a way out of dealing with This, which you are.

You say you're not a 'speed merchant' yet are caught doing 90 in an 80 zone.
Maybe you didn't get the original notice for a fine and points, but now take whatever's coming.

ButtersSuki

Rubberchikken wrote: »

Why speed, which you we're, and then wonder if there's a way out of dealing with This, which you are.

You say you're not a 'speed merchant' yet are caught doing 90 in an 80 zone.
Maybe you didn't get the original notice for a fine and points, but now take whatever's coming.

I should have known there would be a reply like this.

I have zero points.
Did I speed on this occasion? Yes. Do I do this regularly? No. Does driving at 90 in a 3 lane 80 zone that has just transitioned from a 100 zone once and for a short period whilst decelerating make me a speed merchant? I don't think so but perhaps under your definition it does.
Normally I put the car in cruise at whatever the limit is (or just below it) and let that take care of it and I suspect that was what I likely did on this occasion.
I explained the road conditions. It's a 3 lane wide road which just prior to where I was caught transitions from 100 to 80. I suspect what I did was knock off cruise as I left the 100 zone and letvthe car "cruise" down to 80 before hitting the cruise button again.
The road was as empty as I can remember seeing it at the time as it was approaching noon. As I mentioned it's a 3 lane road but one of those where you wonder to yourself why it's 80 v 100?

I'm not trying to avoid my fine or points - that wasn't what I said or what my query was about. I would take the 3 points. I don't however feel it is fair that I take 5 points for this offence when I didn't get the notice - that is what I was asking about.

By your strict definition I assume you never are as much as 1 kph over the limit as that would be speeding, right? You observe this at all times, even when overtaking?

Da Regulator

ButtersSuki wrote: »

I should have known there would be a reply like this.

I have zero points.
Did I speed on this occasion? Yes. Do I do this regularly? No. Does driving at 90 in a 3 lane 80 zone that has just transitioned from a 100 zone once and for a short period whilst decelerating make me a speed merchant? I don't think so but perhaps under your definition it does.
Normally I put the car in cruise at whatever the limit is (or just below it) and let that take care of it and I suspect that was what I likely did on this occasion.
I explained the road conditions. It's a 3 lane wide road which just prior to where I was caught transitions from 100 to 80. I suspect what I did was knock off cruise as I left the 100 zone and letvthe car "cruise" down to 80 before hitting the cruise button again.
The road was as empty as I can remember seeing it at the time as it was approaching noon. As I mentioned it's a 3 lane road but one of those where you wonder to yourself why it's 80 v 100?

I'm not trying to avoid my fine or points - that wasn't what I said or what my query was about. I would take the 3 points. I don't however feel it is fair that I take 5 points for this offence when I didn't get the notice - that is what I was asking about.

By your strict definition I assume you never are as much as 1 kph over the limit as that would be speeding, right? You observe this at all times, even when overtaking?

Best to ignore many posts on this forum. Very few people who are actually legally trained are posting here.

hullaballoo

Da Regulator wrote: »

Best to ignore many posts on this forum. Very few people who are actually legally trained are posting here.

Your other post containing legal advice was deleted and red carded.

It is not a prerequisite to posting here that members must be legally trained but for that very reason, no legal advice is allowed.

Please familiar yourself with the forum charter before posting here again.

GM228

Da Regulator wrote: »

Best to ignore many posts on this forum. Very few people who are actually legally trained are posting here.

You would be surprised of the amount of people who post on this forum who are aut fait with the law. There are solicitors, barristers and many others who are "legally trained" or have decent knowledge of the legal system here in the LD forum to know what they are posting about. The only downside of the LD forum is we are unable to seek/give legal advice - and for good reason.

Da Regulator

GM228 wrote: »

You would be surprised of the amount of people who post on this forum who are aut fait with the law. There are solicitors, barristers and many others who are "legally trained" or have decent knowledge of the legal system here in the LD forum to know what they are posting about. The only downside of the LD forum is we are unable to seek/give legal advice - and for good reason.

Fair enough. I can see you are making sound statements. OP, read GM228's first post.

mel123

OP, is there any way at all you know anyone in law, i.e a solicitor or barrister, that would turn up on the day with you and represent you?
I find that when you have someone legal with you, its a different story in front of a judge.
Just my personal experience.

jim-mcdee

endacl wrote: »

I've a colleague in the same boat. Thought he'd be a fine upstanding citizen and hold his hands up to the offence, pay the fine and be done with it. Now he has to declare a conviction every time he fills out a Garda Vetting form...

A conviction? Are you sure? unlikely to get a conviction for speeding unless he was really going for it. Wouldnt get that for going 10k over the limit....

jimmycrackcorm

ButtersSuki wrote:

I'm not trying to avoid my fine or points - that wasn't what I said or what my query was about. I would take the 3 points. I don't however feel it is fair that I take 5 points for this offence when I didn't get the notice - that is what I was asking about.

Mrs had to go to court as she didn't get the original notice otherwise it would have been paid so she ended up with 5 points.

When she said about not getting it the judge asked if we had problems with not getting our mail. She said yes that sometimes we get mail for 10 xxxx zzzz when our address is 10 xxxx yyyy. But replied no when asked if we had complained to the post office about it.

Judge asked the Garda if he could confirm that it was sent out and he said simply it went out with other notices.

So as you're going to get 5 points and a fine anyway, then you should actually spend time in court demanding proof that the notice was sent out, either proof of postage or some documentation that it was included in a printing batch.


In Mrs case the judge was narky because she didn't know she was supposed to say not guilty at the start to argue about the notice not received.

hullaballoo

jim-mcdee wrote: »

A conviction? Are you sure? unlikely to get a conviction for speeding unless he was really going for it. Wouldnt get that for going 10k over the limit....

I have a strong suspicion that you may think that you don't get criminal convictions for minor road traffic offences? A fine is a result of a conviction.

There is a prevalent misunderstanding about the exact process involved. If you are summoned to court for an "offence", whether that's a speeding fine or a parking ticket, that is a criminal prosecution.

So, if you're leaving court with a fine and or penalty points, you also have a criminal conviction.

hullaballoo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Mrs had to go to court as she didn't get the original notice otherwise it would have been paid so she ended up with 5 points.

When she said about not getting it the judge asked if we had problems with not getting our mail. She said yes that sometimes we get mail for 10 xxxx zzzz when our address is 10 xxxx yyyy. But replied no when asked if we had complained to the post office about it.

Judge asked the Garda if he could confirm that it was sent out and he said simply it went out with other notices.

So as you're going to get 5 points and a fine anyway, then you should actually spend time in court demanding proof that the notice was sent out, either proof of postage or some documentation that it was included in a printing batch.


In Mrs case the judge was narky because she didn't know she was supposed to say not guilty at the start to argue about the notice not received.

Different judges have different approaches to the use of the "I didn't receive the fine" defence. Some dismiss all cases, others convict most unless there's very convincing evidence put forward by the accused.

In general, district court criminal matters are dealt with differently up-and-down the country but that is particularly true for the road traffic sub-set.

tevey08

Going to ask a silly question. But is the offence stated on the summons, does it also include a picture of the speeding offence from the speed van?

givyjoe

Why on earth aren't these notices sent out by registered post? Surely the extra cost of postage can be absorbed by the fine.

sheepo

hullaballoo wrote: »

I have a strong suspicion that you may think that you don't get criminal convictions for minor road traffic offences? A fine is a result of a conviction.

There is a prevalent misunderstanding about the exact process involved. If you are summoned to court for an "offence", whether that's a speeding fine or a parking ticket, that is a criminal prosecution.

So, if you're leaving court with a fine and or penalty points, you also have a criminal conviction.

WHAT???

Similar situation happened me, didn't receive fine, went to court and was given 4 points and a €150 fine.

You're saying I have an actual criminal record now? Same as someone who has a conviction for dealing or assault or something?

I've never heard that before in my life.

hullaballoo

sheepo wrote: »

WHAT???

Similar situation happened me, didn't receive fine, went to court and was given 4 points and a €150 fine.

You're saying I have an actual criminal record now? Same as someone who has a conviction for dealing or assault or something?

I've never heard that before in my life.

Yes, I'm afraid so.

Unfortunately, you also have to declare it to your motor insurers under the "previous convictions" part of your application. Failure to do so could result in invalidation of your policy.

On the other hand, despite the fact that it is a criminal conviction, just like any other, it is regarded as minor. As such, it may not have to be disclosed e.g. to a prospective employer. Some convictions are also subject to the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016.

But yes, it's a criminal conviction.

sheepo

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, I'm afraid so.

Unfortunately, you also have to declare it to your motor insurers under the "previous convictions" part of your application. Failure to do so could result in invalidation of your policy.

On the other hand, despite the fact that it is a criminal conviction, just like any other, it is regarded as minor. As such, it may not have to be disclosed e.g. to a prospective employer. Some convictions are also subject to the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions and Certain Disclosures) Act 2016.

But yes, it's a criminal conviction.

My mind is blown. Jesus, if I'd had a crash in the last three years my policy wouldn't have been valid. Shocking.

hullaballoo

sheepo wrote: »

My mind is blown. Jesus, if I'd had a crash in the last three years my policy wouldn't have been valid. Shocking.

Well, that's a little more complicated and it isn't a rabbit-hole I'm looking to go down today...

But yes, it's certainly something an insurance company would use to try and avoid a policy in the event of a claim.

sheepo

hullaballoo wrote: »

Well, that's a little more complicated and it isn't a rabbit-hole I'm looking to go down today...

But yes, it's certainly something an insurance company would use to try and avoid a policy in the event of a claim.

No bother, thanks for that.

Da Regulator

As per s25 (e) of Road Traffic Act 2016, if an offence falls under the new legislation (rules came into affect after 01 June 2017), is the motorist given an option to pay double the fixed charge notice with the summons (s)he receives to avoid court?

GM228

Da Regulator wrote: »

As per s25 (e) of Road Traffic Act 2016, if an offence falls under the new legislation (rules came into affect after 01 June 2017), is the motorist given an option to pay double the fixed charge notice with the summons (s)he receives to avoid court?

Yes, this is known as the "Section 44 Notice", (the so-called 3rd payment option), they can pay double the original FCPN penalty up to 7 days before appearance.

It closes the loophole of "I didn't get the FCPN judge" which was mentioned at the start of the thread, it only applies however to an offence committed on or after 1st June 2017 (hence why I asked the OP the date of the offence).

The notice accompanies the summons when applicable, any offences before 1st June are dealth with under the old system.

Victor

givyjoe wrote: »

Why on earth aren't these notices sent out by registered post? Surely the extra cost of postage can be absorbed by the fine.

People would simply refuse acceptance of registered post.

Esel

Victor wrote: »

People would simply refuse acceptance of registered post.

Plain envelope, no block capitals (or it it all block capitals?) so as to cod the Freemen.

givyjoe

Victor wrote: »

People would simply refuse acceptance of registered post.

There would at least be a record of the refusal. The license holder then shouldn't be able to claim oh well it was sent to the wrong address, your responsibility to make sure your address is up to date.

Even if some refused, its still surely better than the current system where it's screwing over genuine cases of non receipt.

sheepo

I looked into the conviction issue yesterday and today, because I was shocked that something that resulted in as trivial a punishment as 4 penalty points and a €150 fine could result in a criminal record. I could not see how that would be the case.

I was thinking of people I know who have been given a fine by a judge but avoided a criminal record, and couldn't believe that the judge would have been dishing out convictions like a conveyor belt the day I was in court.

I phoned two different Garda stations and they said it does not result in a criminal conviction. You've technically been convicted in court but it's not a criminal record and doesn't have to be notified to anyone including your motor insurer.

To be sure to be sure, I went in to my local station on the way to work this morning and they checked Pulse for me, and there is no conviction against my name.

hullaballoo

sheepo wrote: »

I looked into the conviction issue yesterday and today, because I was shocked that something that resulted in as trivial a punishment as 4 penalty points and a €150 fine could result in a criminal record. I could not see how that would be the case.

I was thinking of people I know who have been given a fine by a judge but avoided a criminal record, and couldn't believe that the judge would have been dishing out convictions like a conveyor belt the day I was in court.

I phoned two different Garda stations and they said it does not result in a criminal conviction. You've technically been convicted in court but it's not a criminal record and doesn't have to be notified to anyone including your motor insurer.

To be sure to be sure, I went in to my local station on the way to work this morning and they checked Pulse for me, and there is no conviction against my name.

This is untrue, I'm afraid.

There is no way of putting this that doesn't make me sound like a condescending prick so I'll just have to live with it.

Most members of AGS have no legal training. Certainly, you'll find that the ones picking up the phones/on the front desk in your local station almost definitely don't.

I have 3 law degrees and 8 years of PQE behind me.

Since we're doing emphatic formatting: A court fine is a criminal conviction. It is recorded against you. AND it is notifiable to your insurers.

sheepo

This is mad. I'm not doubting you either, you sound like you know what you're talking about but it's bewildering. I'm obviously going to try and check information I get on an anonymous internet forum.

I phoned two stations and went into a third and all told me the same thing. And one checked Pulse. Do you know why the conviction wouldn't have come up on Pulse?

How do I check this further?
Do I need to go to a solicitor for confirmation or do a Data Access Request to the guards?

hullaballoo

sheepo wrote: »

This is mad. I'm not doubting you either, you sound like you know what you're talking about but it's bewildering. I'm obviously going to try and check information I get on an anonymous internet forum.

You are right to do so. Of course you have no way of verifying what I'm saying is true unless I prove it to you, so you are right to try and verify it.

The discussion is getting a bit complex now because there are a number of different factors at play, some of which may be controversial.

I phoned two stations and went into a third and all told me the same thing.

Gardaí generally have no formal legal training. That said, I would expect them to know at a minimum that a conviction is a conviction and is recorded against the convicted person. If they do not know this, it is a flaw in their training. (Although it is a flaw that would tend to benefit people convicted of such minor offences.)

And one checked Pulse. Do you know why the conviction wouldn't have come up on Pulse?

Pulse is notoriously unreliable and there are regularly instances where serious criminal convictions are not recorded on pulse as well as acquittals (strike outs and dismissals) wrongly being recorded as convictions. Pulse is a very old system and is basically used as a networked electronic notepad for want of a better description.

It is down to whatever Garda who prosecuted the parking ticket or whatever to enter the conviction on Pulse for it to be recorded there. Even at that, Pulse does not have any reliable way of weeding out data entry errors. So in order for the Pulse entry about you to be 100% correct and flawless, every entry must be equally flawless (down to the spelling of your name, address and the format of your date of birth etc.) Then, when checking the record, the query must be equally accurate etc. That's assuming every Garda you've had dealings with has been diligent enough to enter all of this information flawlessly, despite having limited time in which to do so and bigger fish to fry than some bozo pushing the speed limit a small bit.

AFAIK, for the above reasons, Pulse isn't used by the Garda Vetting Unit as it's too inaccurate. I'm not sure where they get their information but it would seem to be of a far better quality. The vetting unit seems to be the authoritative record of a person's dealings with AGS.

How do I check this further?
Do I need to go to a solicitor for confirmation or do a Data Access Request to the guards?

I'd ask you a question back - given the above information, do you want to poke that bear? If you've a clean slate as far as you can tell with AGS, would it be better to leave it?


More generally, the whole point of the FCPN system is to avoid having everyone going around carrying criminal convictions

sheepo

hullaballoo wrote: »

I'd ask you a question back - given the above information, do you want to poke that bear? If you've a clean slate as far as you can tell with AGS, would it be better to leave it?


More generally, the whole point of the FCPN system is to avoid having everyone going around carrying criminal convictions

I understand. If I can mix our metaphors, no, I'd much prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. It's a minor conviction and it's not going to affect my daily life so I don't want to rake anything up with the guards.

The reason I've gotten so worked up is purely the car insurance angle. I don't know what effect it'll have on my policy or premium. I'll just have to ring them anyway and see what happens.

Thanks for the time you've taken on this, much appreciated.

hullaballoo

Do you have a broker?