Parking tickets

Under His Eye

Lmklad wrote: »

Wow this threat has gone way off topic!!

OP just fill out the back of the ticket with the drivers details and send it back. A new ticket will be issued to the driver.

And what happens if this reissued ticket is not paid/ignored?

4ensic15

Marcusm wrote: »

The law purports to render an individual a criminal irrespective for an act which he has not undertaken without any limitation with respect to his actions or the care which he has taken. It’s an unusual structure - an individual can be guilty of an offence, for example, for failing to secure a firearm but is not liable for acts carried out by a person to whom he might have lent the firearm. In this case, the registered owner is an offender unless he acquiesces to the coercive effects of a diversion process (paying a parking ticket arising from the acts of a third party). I think it is badly constructed law and while IANAL I do not see that it can result in penalising an individual without effective ability to provide a defence with respect to the actions of others.

It happens in many offences. The owner has failed to ensure his car is parked according to law.

Fann Linn

4ensic15 wrote: »

It happens in many offences. The owner has failed to ensure his car is parked according to law.

Same thing with littering offences. The registered owner of the vehicle gets the fine. It's up to him then to identify the alleged offender.

4ensic15

Fann Linn wrote: »

Same thing with littering offences. The registered owner of the vehicle gets the fine. It's up to him then to identify the alleged offender.

That is not the same. With parking both the registered owner and the driver commit an offence. Same with display of tax for that matter.

Lmklad

Under His Eye wrote: »

Lmklad wrote: »

Wow this threat has gone way off topic!!

OP just fill out the back of the ticket with the drivers details and send it back. A new ticket will be issued to the driver.

And what happens if this reissued ticket is not paid/ignored?

A summons is issued to the nominated driver not the owner.

4ensic15

Lmklad wrote: »

A summons is issued to the nominated driver not the owner.

That is only in the case of some offences.

Lmklad

4ensic15 wrote: »

Lmklad wrote: »

A summons is issued to the nominated driver not the owner.

That is only in the case of some offences.

And this is one of those offences.

4ensic15

Lmklad wrote: »

And this is one of those offences.

Where is it listed as such an offence?

Time

4ensic15 wrote: »

Where is it listed as such an offence?

Assuming that it’s a local authority ticket, which most are it’s covered under
S.3(3)b of the LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRAFFIC WARDENS) ACT 1975 (as amended) which provides for nomination within 28 days of receipt.

Once done S.3(4) applies and the LA must reissue to the driver and if they fail to pay they will be prosecuted as per S.3(6). Where the notice is attached to the vehicle the same applies as per S.3(7)

4ensic15

Time wrote: »

Assuming that it’s a local authority ticket, which most are it’s covered under
S.3(3)b of the LOCAL AUTHORITIES (TRAFFIC WARDENS) ACT 1975 (as amended) which provides for nomination within 28 days of receipt.

Once done S.3(4) applies and the LA must reissue to the driver and if they fail to pay they will be prosecuted as per S.3(6). Where the notice is attached to the vehicle the same applies as per S.3(7)

Nothing in Section 3(4) exempts the registered owner from the offence.

Time

4ensic15 wrote: »

Nothing in Section 3(4) exempts the registered owner from the offence.

It doesn’t need to, it is clear from any rudimentary statutory interpretation of the act that it is intended that if a registered owner of a vehicle was not in control at the time of the offense when the notice under S.3 was issued then S.4 allows for nomination and S.6 allows for prosecution of the person named in accordance with S.4.

Not everything needs to be implicitly stated where it is patently obvious, why law is not void of common sense. I don’t think you could seriously suggest that any DC judge would interpret that act as big the intention that liability could fall back on a registered owner who had followed the requirements to provide notification.

Lmklad

Thank you Time.

4ensic15

Time wrote: »

It doesn’t need to, it is clear from any rudimentary statutory interpretation of the act that it is intended that if a registered owner of a vehicle was not in control at the time of the offense when the notice under S.3 was issued then S.4 allows for nomination and S.6 allows for prosecution of the person named in accordance with S.4.

Not everything needs to be implicitly stated where it is patently obvious, why law is not void of common sense. I don’t think you could seriously suggest that any DC judge would interpret that act as big the intention that liability could fall back on a registered owner who had followed the requirements to provide notification.

The offence itself makes the registered owner and the driver guilty. A notice on a form can't alter that. It is different with speeding and other offences such as dangerous driving.

Lmklad

4ensic15 wrote: »

The offence itself makes the registered owner and the driver guilty. A notice on a form can't alter that. It is different with speeding and other offences such as dangerous driving.

Incorrect. The notice is not finalised guilt. Our justice system does not work that way. A notice is an accusation only. One which may be accepted by the accused or passed onto the actual driver. I don’t know way you’re arguing this, these notices have been around for years, your hypothesis is not based on fact.

4ensic15

Lmklad wrote: »

Incorrect. The notice is not finalised guilt. Our justice system does not work that way. A notice is an accusation only. One which may be accepted by the accused or passed onto the actual driver. I don’t know way you’re arguing this, these notices have been around for years, your hypothesis is not based on fact.

A person can challenge the accusation but in a parking offence, both the registered owner and the driver are guilty. each can defend. Putting the driver's name on a parking notice does not absolve the registered owner.

Lmklad

4ensic15 wrote: »

Lmklad wrote: »

Incorrect. The notice is not finalised guilt. Our justice system does not work that way. A notice is an accusation only. One which may be accepted by the accused or passed onto the actual driver. I don’t know way you’re arguing this, these notices have been around for years, your hypothesis is not based on fact.

A person can challenge the accusation but in a parking offence, both the registered owner and the driver are guilty. each can defend. Putting the driver's name on a parking notice does not absolve the registered owner.

Please actually look at one of these tickets before commenting.

4ensic15

Lmklad wrote: »

Please actually look at one of these tickets before commenting.

You are talking about the ticket. What is the legislative basis for your comments?

Time

4ensic15 wrote: »

A person can challenge the accusation but in a parking offence, both the registered owner and the driver are guilty. each can defend. Putting the driver's name on a parking notice does not absolve the registered owner.

Guilt is decided by a court not a traffic warden, neither are guilty of an offense instead they are given a notice and can pay to prevent further action or have their day in court.

no district court judge would look at the act and be able to hold that the registered owner is guilty of an offense if they’ve provided notice. Have a look at S.5(b) of the statutory interpretation act, apply it to the parking act I cited earlier and come back here and tell me that the intention of the Oireachtas was to make the owner guilty of an offense even in the circumstances we’re discussing

Time

4ensic15 wrote: »

You are talking about the ticket. What is the legislative basis for your comments?

Local Authority (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975.

4ensic15

Time wrote: »

Local Authority (Traffic Wardens) Act 1975.

What in that act exempts the registered owner in favour of the driver?

4ensic15

Time wrote: »

Guilt is decided by a court not a traffic warden, neither are guilty of an offense instead they are given a notice and can pay to prevent further action or have their day in court.

no district court judge would look at the act and be able to hold that the registered owner is guilty of an offense if they’ve provided notice. Have a look at S.5(b) of the statutory interpretation act, apply it to the parking act I cited earlier and come back here and tell me that the intention of the Oireachtas was to make the owner guilty of an offense even in the circumstances we’re discussing

There is no "statutory interpretation act". If a registered owner turns up in court and says I am the registered owner but I was not driving so and so was how does that amount to a defence? The offence defines both as guilty.

Time

4ensic15 wrote: »

There is no "statutory interpretation act". If a registered owner turns up in court and says I am the registered owner but I was not driving so and so was how does that amount to a defence? The offence defines both as guilty.

Firstly yes there is such an act its here

Secondly the offence does not apply to both, in fact S.10 of the 1975 act as amended (which you can find here specifically states;

Local Authority (traffic wardens) Act 1975 wrote:

(10) Where, in a case to which subsection (2)( b ) of this section applies, the registered owner of the mechanically propelled vehicle concerned does not furnish in accordance with subsection (3) of this section the information specified in paragraph (i) of that subsection, then, in a prosecution of that owner for the alleged offence to which the notice under the said subsection (2)( b ) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle at the time of the commission of the alleged offence.

i.e the registered owner only is assumed to be guilty of an offence, where they fail to provide notice of the person who was driving until rebutted. The corollary of that is that the driver is assumed guilty of the offence where their details are provided until they rebut that presumption.

We can deduct this from reading the act in full and applying the statutory interpretation act (and applying common sense) which makes it clear that the intention of the Oireachtas was for the registered owner to have a means to have the notice re-issued to the correct party. Not for the registered owner to still be liable once they had done so and certainly not for both to be concurrently liable, which on its face would seem to be unconstitutional, as the nature of the offence means it could not be committed as part of a joint enterprise.

4ensic15

Time wrote: »

Firstly yes there is such an act its here

That is the "interpretation Act" not the "Statutory Interpretation Act".

Time wrote: »

Secondly the offence does not apply to both, in fact S.10 of the 1975 act as amended (which you can find here specifically states;

Time wrote: »

i.e the registered owner only is assumed to be guilty of an offence, where they fail to provide notice of the person who was driving until rebutted. The corollary of that is that the driver is assumed guilty of the offence where their details are provided until they rebut that presumption.

None of the above is specifically stated in the link you provided. You are making it up.

Time wrote: »

We can deduct this from reading the act in full and applying the statutory interpretation act (and applying common sense) which makes it clear that the intention of the Oireachtas was for the registered owner to have a means to have the notice re-issued to the correct party. Not for the registered owner to still be liable once they had done so and certainly not for both to be concurrently liable, which on its face would seem to be unconstitutional, as the nature of the offence means it could not be committed as part of a joint enterprise.

None of this alters Section 36 (8) of the Road Traffic Act 1994. Where was that subsection repealed. If the Oireachtas intended something they have to say so.

Time

4ensic15 wrote: »

None of the above is specifically stated in the link you provided. You are making it up.

None of this alters Section 36 (8) of the Road Traffic Act 1994. Where was that subsection repealed. If the Oireachtas intended something they have to say so.

I’m not making anything up, I’m teasing out what is said. What meaning do you believe that section has, and what do you believe the intention of the Oireachtas was in introducing it? Because I can see no other interpretation. More importantly how do you believe that a DC judge would read and apply it?

So far you seem to only be telling other people they’re wrong instead of explaining what you think is the correct application of the law

4ensic15

Time wrote: »

I’m not making anything up, I’m teasing out what is said. What meaning do you believe that section has, and what do you believe the intention of the Oireachtas was in introducing it? Because I can see no other interpretation. More importantly how do you believe that a DC judge would read and apply it?

So far you seem to only be telling other people they’re wrong instead of explaining what you think is the correct application of the law

The intention of the Oireachtas is plain from Section 36 (4) of the RTA 1994. A District Judge has no option but to apply the law. Some offences are cpapable of being committed by the registered owner only, some by both owner and driver and some by driver only. Nominating a driver by the registered owner is only applicable to offences capable of being committed by the drive3r only such as speeding.