Court Poor Box

Victor

Road Traffic Act 2010, Section 4 (7) http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/4/enacted/en/html states "Section 1 (1) of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 does not apply to an offence under this section."

Does this mean that the poor box can't be used either, therefore, facts proven means automatic conviction?

EDIT: Note that this applies to quite a few offences, e.g. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/enacted/en/print#sec55

Peregrinus

It means there will be a conviction. This doesn't entirely preclude the use of the poor box; you can be convicted and also ordered to make a contribution to the poor box.

Really Interested

Peregrinus wrote: »

It means there will be a conviction. This doesn't entirely preclude the use of the poor box; you can be convicted and also ordered to make a contribution to the poor box.

Section 4 is Drink Driving, conviction means a mandatory ban, so poor box would be nice but the ban has to follow conviction.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

It means there will be a conviction. This doesn't entirely preclude the use of the poor box; you can be convicted and also ordered to make a contribution to the poor box.

Can you?

Doesn't the poor box involve a 'voluntary' contribution following which the charges are typically struck out?

How can a judge 'order' you to contribute to a fund which has no legal basis? What if you agree to such an 'order' and then fail to pay?

Peregrinus

The legal basis for it is unclear but, yes, a judge can convict you and order you to make a payment to the court poor box. Occasionally judges will do this where, e.g., the maximum fine for the offence hasn't been adjusted in years and no longer represents appropriate retribution an or effective deterrent, or where the nature of the offence is such that a judge thinks a contribution to charity is a more fitting penalty than a fine paid to the exchequer.

You could probably appeal to the higher courts and argue that there was no jurisdiction to make such an order, but the costs of doing so are disproportionate to the level of poor box contribution that people are typically ordered to make. A Law Reform Commission report a few years back recommended that the system be reformed and put on a statutory footing, and one of the recommendations was that it should not be possible to order a poor box contribution were a conviction is recorded. (Others included the poor box being renamed the "Reparation Fund" and the court being given a statutory power to make "Reparation Fund orders" where guilt has been established but a conviction is not recorded.)

hullaballoo

The question is whether the poor box can be used in lieu of conviction in relation to that section.

The poor box can be used in relation to many and various offences where the prosecution has proven its case but the judge feels a conviction ought not in the circumstances be registered. I don't believe it's defined anywhere what offences are amenable to the poor box but in practice, it's often very minor ones.

Tenigate

Came across this when googling something else. From 2014 but interesting.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/law-banning-use-of-poor-box-in-traffic-cases-widely-ignored-1.1737756

Law banning use of poor box in traffic cases widely ignored

Really Interested

Tenigate wrote: »

Came across this when googling something else. From 2014 but interesting.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/law-banning-use-of-poor-box-in-traffic-cases-widely-ignored-1.1737756

Law banning use of poor box in traffic cases widely ignored

In all cases I am aware of it was points offences. I am unaware of any case involving drink driving in which the poor box was used. I believe if it ever happened AGS would JR the decision.

Peregrinus

Tenigate wrote: »

Came across this when googling something else. From 2014 but interesting.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/motors/law-banning-use-of-poor-box-in-traffic-cases-widely-ignored-1.1737756

Law banning use of poor box in traffic cases widely ignored

The report does say that "Last month Mr Justice Gerard Hogan ruled it “incorrect” to allow motorists to avoid conviction via the poor box. His decision was forwarded to all District Court judges.". So possibly the state of affairs described in the report no longer prevails.

Really Interested

Peregrinus wrote: »

The report does say that "Last month Mr Justice Gerard Hogan ruled it “incorrect” to allow motorists to avoid conviction via the poor box. His decision was forwarded to all District Court judges.". So possibly the state of affairs described in the report no longer prevails.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/use-of-poor-box-for-driving-offences-persists-despite-ruling-1.2350226%3Fmode%3Damp

“Hundreds of drivers are continuing to avoid penalty points in court by making a contribution to the poor box despite a High Court ruling last year stating the practice was “incorrect”.”

I practice in the area of criminal law I have acted in many drink driving cases I have never been involved in one that the poor box was used nor have I heard of one. It is my belief that if it did happen the garda would appeal byway of case stated.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/074104ce6834c5ce80257c8600343275?OpenDocument[URL][/url]

4ensic15

Peregrinus wrote: »

It means there will be a conviction. This doesn't entirely preclude the use of the poor box; you can be convicted and also ordered to make a contribution to the poor box.

If you are convicted you will be fined. Contributions to the poor box are made in lieu of conviction.

4ensic15

Really Interested wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/use-of-poor-box-for-driving-offences-persists-despite-ruling-1.2350226%3Fmode%3Damp

“Hundreds of drivers are continuing to avoid penalty points in court by making a contribution to the poor box despite a High Court ruling last year stating the practice was “incorrect”.”

I practice in the area of criminal law I have acted in many drink driving cases I have never been involved in one that the poor box was used nor have I heard of one. It is my belief that if it did happen the garda would appeal byway of case stated.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/074104ce6834c5ce80257c8600343275?OpenDocument[URL][/url]

The DPP states a case in the event of a DJ not convicting of drink driving if they regard the ground as spurious. The DPP don't bother in the case of other minor offences.

Really Interested

4ensic15 wrote: »

The DPP states a case in the event of a DJ not convicting of drink driving if they regard the ground as spurious. The DPP don't bother in the case of other minor offences.

Which is what i said, if the poor box was used in drink driving, to avoid conviction i believe the AGS would go to the High Court. In the Penalty points case the matter ended up in the High Court as the accused took a JR as against the refusal of the Judge to even consider the application to use the poor box. The very fact that judges continue to do and AGS do not take action says a lot but they would in my opion if it was a case involving Drink Driving.

From the High Court, "In the case of those traffic offences where the imposition of penalty points has been made mandatory by the Oireachtas via the enactment of the Road Traffic Act 2002, and where the Probation of Offenders Act 1907 has been disapplied to such offences by s. 55 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, the District Court’s common law poor box jurisdiction must be taken to have been superseded by these statutory provisions. In such cases it must accordingly be concluded that the District Court enjoys no jurisdiction to impose an informal sanction short of actual conviction such as accepting a donation to the poor box, as this would amount to an indirect circumvention of these statutory provisions"

4ensic15

Really Interested wrote: »

Which is what i said, if the poor box was used in drink driving, to avoid conviction i believe the AGS would go to the High Court. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

The AGS cannot go to the High Court as it is not a party in the case. The DPP goes to the High Court.

Really Interested

4ensic15 wrote: »

Really Interested wrote: »

Which is what i said, if the poor box was used in drink driving, to avoid conviction i believe the AGS would go to the High Court.

The AGS cannot go to the High Court as it is not a party in the case. The DPP goes to the High Court.

In some cases the Garda prosecutes as common informer, i have in front of me a Charge sheet, listed as prosecutor/Complainant, is "Garda XXX XXX". Also A garda acts as prosecutor in most summary offences not a solicitor or barrister.

From the District court rules Order 36 rule 1 “1. Where the Court makes an order in any case of summary jurisdiction (including an order to "strike out" for want of jurisdiction) it shall have power to order any party to the proceedings other than the Director of Public Prosecutions, or a member of the Garda Síochána acting in discharge of his or her duties as a police officer, to pay to the other party such costs and witnesses' expenses as it shall think fit to award.“

The more correct thing for me to say is the state would go to the High Court but for ease I said the AGS.

4ensic15

The garda Proscutor is never a common informer. Members of the AGS are not allowed to prosecute as common informers. A district court prosecution will be DPP at the Suit of Garda X. A barrister or solicitor appearing in a criminal case in the role of prosecutor is simply an advocate appearing for the DPP and not the prosecutor of the case no more than a guard who presents a case.

coylemj

4ensic15 wrote: »

The garda Proscutor is never a common informer. Members of the AGS are not allowed to prosecute as common informers. A district court prosecution will be DPP at the Suit of Garda X.

So if I get a district court summons with a Garda named as the complainant and ne'er a mention of the DPP, I can throw it in the bin?

4ensic15

coylemj wrote: »

So if I get a district court summons with a Garda named as the complainant and ne'er a mention of the DPP, I can throw it in the bin?

A summons is just a device to get you to come to court. Errors or omissions in the summons are not relevant. You may be able to make something of it in court.

coylemj

4ensic15 wrote: »

A summons is just a device to get you to come to court. Errors or omissions in the summons are not relevant. You may be able to make something of it in court.

Dodging the question.

This statement of yours is dead wrong ....

4ensic15 wrote: »

Members of the AGS are not allowed to prosecute as common informers. A district court prosecution will be DPP at the Suit of Garda X.

Charge sheets (see post #15) and District Court summons for minor offences always have the prosecuting Garda as the complainant, they do not mention the DPP.

4ensic15

coylemj wrote: »

Dodging the question.

This statement of yours is dead wrong ....



Charge sheets (see post #15) and District Court summons for minor offences always have the prosecuting Garda as the complainant, they do not mention the DPP.

That statement of your is dead wrong.
Garda Síochána Act 2005
8.— (1) No member of the Garda Síochána in the course of his or her official duties may institute a prosecution except as provided under this section.

(2) Subject to subsection (3), any member of the Garda Síochána may institute and conduct prosecutions in a court of summary jurisdiction, but only in the name of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.