Penalty points - Mandatory court appearance

ichabod

A friend recently appeared before the court for driving while uninsured. No contest, he
" dunnit ". His solicitor made the usual mitigating circumstances pleadings and my friend received a €1000 fine. Yesterday, he received a letter stating that he had now had 8 penalty points ( 3 from a previous fine for using a mobile phone ). Clearly the additional 5 were for the insurance offence.
He is surprised, to say the least, at these 5 additional points as e is adamant that the judge made no reference to penalty points in his judgement of a €1000 fine nor did his solicitor. I made the point that, once found guilty, the 5 points were mandatory, the judge had discretion only in the amount of the fine or a possible jail sentence and did not need to include the penalty points in his judgement.
Then I thought that maybe I was wrong. That when handing down a judgement, a judge should include all aspects of the sentence. The 5 penalty points are, after all , part of the punishment, even though mandatory. Would it be OK for a judge to exercise his discretion of a jail sentence and simply say " I'm sending you to jail " without stating the term of imprisonment ? Of course not.
The problem here is that not only did the judge ( apparently ) fail to mention the points but my friend is certain that at no point did the solicitor mention the application of the points. So, by this omission, those unversed in legal niceties would, not unreasonably, think that was it, a fine, am'n't I a lucky guy.
I doubt if this omission by the judge makes a blind bit of difference but the questions are :
1. Are judges obliged to include all aspects of penalties incurred by a defendant ?
If not,
2. Should they be required to do so ?

GM228

Penalty points are an administrative system applied by the RSA, not the courts. It is not for the judiciary to hand them down or inform you of such.

A judge simply finds you guilty (or not) and hands down an appropriate punishment (fine/ban/imprisonment etc), but points is beyond their remit.

hullaballoo

Exactly as above. Penalty points are an administrative sanction that flow from certain acts - like paying a FCPN or getting a conviction.

As such, the disqualification for accumulating 12 points (assuming fully licensed driver etc.) is an administrative disqualification and nothing to do with the Courts.

4ensic15

ichabod wrote: »

A friend recently appeared before the court for driving while uninsured. No contest, he
" dunnit ".?

He could have put the prosecution on proof. He might have got off.

Lmklad

4ensic15 wrote: »

ichabod wrote: »

A friend recently appeared before the court for driving while uninsured. No contest, he
" dunnit ".?

He could have put the prosecution on proof. He might have got off.

What do you mean “on proof”?

4ensic15

Lmklad wrote: »

What do you mean “on proof”?

If a "not guilty" plea is entered the prosecution has to prove its case. Proof of driving, proof of a lawful demand etc. Deal with the servant defence if raised. Not every prosecution for no insurance succeeds.

Lmklad

Is this not one of the easiest prosecutions to prove? Garda can give direct evidence of public place, identifying the vehicle and driver and of making the lawful demand?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

GM228

Lmklad wrote: »

Is this not one of the easiest prosecutions to prove? Garda can give direct evidence of public place, identifying the vehicle and driver and of making the lawful demand?

There are plenty of areas they can mess up on, especially the wording of the demand to produce, if spoken incorrectly (which actually happens a lot) the demand may be unlawful.

Lmklad

GM228 wrote: »

Lmklad wrote: »

Is this not one of the easiest prosecutions to prove? Garda can give direct evidence of public place, identifying the vehicle and driver and of making the lawful demand?

There are plenty of areas they can mess up on, especially the wording of the demand to produce, if spoken incorrectly (which actually happens a lot) the demand may be unlawful.

I understand that. I’m wondering is it worth the gamble, that the guard will mess up. Having pled not guilty the guard gives good evidence, the judge asked defendant for proof of insurance, defendant says “ah I don’t having any.”

4ensic15

Lmklad wrote: »

I understand that. I’m wondering is it worth the gamble, that the guard will mess up. Having pled not guilty the guard gives good evidence, the judge asked defendant for proof of insurance, defendant says “ah I don’t having any.”

Then the Defendant is convicted, same as if they had pleaded guilty in the first place. If they get off, happy days. I saw a defendant get off one day because the guard only asked for a certificate of insurance, said nothing about exemption.