A question about court procedures

grundie

Hi all,

Suppose someone goes to district court to fight a speeding ticket. They have done some research which calls in to question the accuracy of the states evidence. At the court hearing they present this evidence to the judge. The judge states that they raise some very valid points and then asks the prosecuting Garda for his opinion. He states that he needs time to source more data and asks for an adjournment - which is granted.

Before the next hearing the prosecuting Garda states to the defendant that they have no more data to give them. When the defendant is called up - before a different judge - the Garda presents the same case and so does the defendant. Except this time the judge refuses to accept anything from the defendant. He refuses to look at any of the paperwork provided saying it is just information and not evidence.

The judge then ruled in favour of the state.

So my question is are different judges allowed to apply different criteria for what they consider as valid evidence? It seems strange that one judge was willing to accept the defendants evidence, but another one wouldn't even look at it - let alone consider it.

lifeandtimes

grundie wrote: »

Hi all,

Suppose someone goes to district court to fight a speeding ticket. They have done some research which calls in to question the accuracy of the states evidence. At the court hearing they present this evidence to the judge. The judge states that they raise some very valid points and then asks the prosecuting Garda for his opinion. He states that he needs time to source more data and asks for an adjournment - which is granted.

Before the next hearing the prosecuting Garda states to the defendant that they have no more data to give them. When the defendant is called up - before a different judge - the Garda presents the same case and so does the defendant. Except this time the judge refuses to accept anything from the defendant. He refuses to look at any of the paperwork provided saying it is just information and not evidence.

The judge then ruled in favour of the state.

So my question is are different judges allowed to apply different criteria for what they consider as valid evidence? It seems strange that one judge was willing to accept the defendants evidence, but another one wouldn't even look at it - let alone consider it.

Yes they can, happens all the time, different judges think different things on different days which is why there is an appeals process.

I've had to appeal many things and had them overturned in a higher court.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Riva10

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And justice is at the whim of the judge. :eek:

grundie

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Yes they can, happens all the time, different judges think different things on different days which is why there is an appeals process.

I've had to appeal many things and had them overturned in a higher court.

I have to admit as someone who knows little about the legal process I found it all very confusing, and a little concerning.

The first judge was splitting his attention evenly between the Guards and the defendants. He was willing to listen to any argument, even the ones that lacked credibility.

When we arrived for the second hearing and the Sargeant said he had nothing new for us, we thought that maybe we stood a good chance. But we thought otherwise after the first few cases.

The first case was of a fellow who had been nominated as a driver of a speeding car by its owner. He swore under oath that he was not the driver, that he had no idea who the owner was and had never met them ever and that he tried to tell the Guards previously, but they wouldn't cancel the summons. The judge asked him for evidence he wasn't the driver, he said there was no way he could do that - so the judge fined him.

A few cases later someone quickly plead guilty to 100 in an 80. She made her plea and followed it with a quick statement saying she wasn't making any excuses and took full responsibility for her irresponsible driving. The judge dismissed the case.

So yes, confusing.

exaisle

I think if I found myself in a similar situation, I'd appeal to a higher court.

I have done so myself in the past (long time ago) and had a satisfactory outcome.

Riva10

grundie wrote: »

I have to admit as someone who knows little about the legal process I found it all very confusing, and a little concerning.

The first judge was splitting his attention evenly between the Guards and the defendants. He was willing to listen to any argument, even the ones that lacked credibility.

When we arrived for the second hearing and the Sargeant said he had nothing new for us, we thought that maybe we stood a good chance. But we thought otherwise after the first few cases.

The first case was of a fellow who had been nominated as a driver of a speeding car by its owner. He swore under oath that he was not the driver, that he had no idea who the owner was and had never met them ever and that he tried to tell the Guards previously, but they wouldn't cancel the summons. The judge asked him for evidence he wasn't the driver, he said there was no way he could do that - so the judge fined him.

A few cases later someone quickly plead guilty to 100 in an 80. She made her plea and followed it with a quick statement saying she wasn't making any excuses and took full responsibility for her irresponsible driving. The judge dismissed the case.

So yes, confusing.

''''

nuac

Riva 10
Remark deleted. Pls stop trolling this thread

Claw Hammer

I don't understand how a case can be part heard by one judge and then another takes the case over. The first judge having taken seisin must finish it unless the parties agree.

Mr. Incognito

Did you have a solicitor?

Some judges will not indulge lay litigants with what they see as irrelevant information as they have been subject to too many time wasting nonsensical rants over their time on the bench.

grundie

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Did you have a solicitor?

Some judges will not indulge lay litigants with what they see as irrelevant information as they have been subject to too many time wasting nonsensical rants over their time on the bench.

Not for this. The person concerned considered getting solicitor to take an appeal, but they have decided they'd rather just be done wth it.

I can understand the judge not wanting to entertain timewasting lay litigants. But the defendant didn't get to make any case at all. They judge kept cutting them off saying that they had to have evidence. They wanted to challenge a statement from the prosecuting Garda who said, under oath, that "GPS cannot be more than 100m accurate because the world is round". A completely inaccurate statement, but they judge wouldn't hear anything to the contrary.

Personally I think they should appeal, but that's not for me to decide. I'm just feeling a bit let down at seeing what look like justice delivered as per the mood of the judge.

What I really don't get since then is the fine. Apparently it was due for payment the next day, but the letter saying so came three days later after the hearing. Followed the next day by a letter saying the fine was overdue and threatening all sort of repercussions.

Mr. Incognito

grundie wrote: »

Not for this. The person concerned considered getting solicitor to take an appeal, but they have decided they'd rather just be done wth it.

I can understand the judge not wanting to entertain timewasting lay litigants. But the defendant didn't get to make any case at all. They judge kept cutting them off saying that they had to have evidence. They wanted to challenge a statement from the prosecuting Garda who said, under oath, that "GPS cannot be more than 100m accurate because the world is round". A completely inaccurate statement, but they judge wouldn't hear anything to the contrary.

Personally I think they should appeal, but that's not for me to decide. I'm just feeling a bit let down at seeing what look like justice delivered as per the mood of the judge.

What I really don't get since then is the fine. Apparently it was due for payment the next day, but the letter saying so came three days later after the hearing. Followed the next day by a letter saying the fine was overdue and threatening all sort of repercussions.

They wanted to challenge a statement from the prosecuting Garda who said, under oath, that "GPS cannot be more than 100m accurate because the world is round".

This seems like a nonsensical tangent.

Either they had evidence to put forward that they were not speeding or they did not.

Judges will not allow lay litigants cross examine in minor matters because its this sort of crap that wastes the courts time and they are busy and have no time for it.

You could have sought to appeal the judgment and you would have gotten a fair hearing at appeal stage but, of course you didnt know to do that because you didnt have representation.

If you want to challenge something in court get a solicitor.

Also, fines need to be paid immediately.

Victor

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

They wanted to challenge a statement from the prosecuting Garda who said, under oath, that "GPS cannot be more than 100m accurate because the world is round".

No - GPS cannot be more than X accurate because the world is not (perfectly) round.

Differential GPS is much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS

grundie

Victor wrote: »

No - GPS cannot be more than X accurate because the world is not (perfectly) round.

Differential GPS is much better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS

The defence was based on the fact that the GPS co-ordinates in the summons photo were 100m away from the road where the offence was alleged to have occurred. Our argument was that if the GPS was so far out, that cast doubt on the accuracy of the rest of the equipment. We know we were taking a chance, but felt it was worth a try as the driver genuinely believes they were not speeding.

At the first hearing the Sargent actually denied they had any GPS equipment in their speed vans. When it was pointed out that the summons photo had latitude and longitude co-ordinates embedded in the top left he seemed surprised and that's when he asked for the adjournment to get more data.

At the second hearing he could not provide any more data, but made the 100m claim. We had documentation from GPS.gov and a few technical journals that contradicted him, but the judge wouldn't hear any of it.

We probably should have got a solicitor involved, but from our perspective it seemed fairly simple to contradict the states evidence - especially since the prosecuting Sargent seemed to not completely understand the operation of the speed vans they have. We learned the hard way that is not the case.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ezra_

So, you* (or someone) was challenging a speeding ticket, which had a photograph of you (or someone) speeding;

you weren't challenging it on the basis of calibration,
you weren't challenging it on the basis of the speed van being outside of the reduced speed zone, but you were challenging it on the basis of the the GPS being out by 100m?

Claw Hammer

grundie wrote: »

The defence was based on the fact that the GPS co-ordinates in the summons photo were 100m away from the road where the offence was alleged to have occurred. Our argument was that if the GPS was so far out, that cast doubt on the accuracy of the rest of the equipment. We know we were taking a chance, but felt it was worth a try as the driver genuinely believes they were not speeding.

At the first hearing the Sargent actually denied they had any GPS equipment in their speed vans. When it was pointed out that the summons photo had latitude and longitude co-ordinates embedded in the top left he seemed surprised and that's when he asked for the adjournment to get more data.

At the second hearing he could not provide any more data, but made the 100m claim. We had documentation from GPS.gov and a few technical journals that contradicted him, but the judge wouldn't hear any of it.

We probably should have got a solicitor involved, but from our perspective it seemed fairly simple to contradict the states evidence - especially since the prosecuting Sargent seemed to not completely understand the operation of the speed vans they have. We learned the hard way that is not the case.

You came into court with hearsay evidence, which is inadmissible. You therefore had no defence. No wonder the judge convicted.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

deandean

It is my (limited) experience that District Court judges literally are a law unto themselves and there is big variation from one judge to the next, depending on the personality and the day of the week etc etc.
I find that there is far more consistency between judges in the higher courts.