Garda convicted of careless driving causing death of woman while on duty

sexmag

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/garda-convicted-of-careless-driving-causing-death-of-woman-75-while-on-duty-37638318.html

Very interesting case.

I believe this will have far reaching consequences going forward.

Currently guards are exempt from road traffic laws which sees then speed excessively(imo high speed chases shouldn't happen at all due to the danger involved), text while driving etc but hopefully this will cause a review on them.

Has a case like this ever happened before? What do people think the sentencing will be?

Samuel T. Cogley

Suspended sentence I expect.

GM228

Very unlikely they will be reviewed or changed as the exemptions are there for valid reasons, the exemption is subject to not putting others at danger and they are not exempt from the ordinary charges of driving without consideration, careless, dangerous or dangerous causing injury/death driving and as seen they most definitely can fall foul of this.

There have been a few cases over the years (usually at the lower without consideration or careless), some have succeeded, some have not.

There was a successful prosecution a few months ago for careless driving.

Victor

The current legal situation.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2014/act/3/section/23/enacted/en/html#sec23

Amendment of section 87 of Act of 2010 — exemptions for emergency vehicles

23. Section 87 of the Act of 2010 is amended by substituting for subsection (1) the following:

“(1) Requirements under the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2010 relating to vehicles and requirements, restrictions and prohibitions relating to the driving and use of vehicles, other than those provided under sections 49, 50, 51A, 52 and 53 of the Principal Act, sections 12, 13 and 15 of the Act of 1994 and sections 4, 5, 11, 12 and 14 of this Act, do not apply to—

(a) the driving or use by a member of the Garda Síochána, an ambulance service (provided by a pre-hospital emergency care service provider recognised by the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council established by the Pre-Hospital Emergency Care Council (Establishment) Order 2000 ( S.I. No. 109 of 2000 )) or a fire brigade of a fire authority (within the meaning of the Fire Services Act 1981 ) of a vehicle in the performance of the duties of that member, or

(b) a person driving or using a vehicle under the direction of a member of the Garda Síochána,

where such use does not endanger the safety of road users.”.

Mr. Incognito

I think these decisions are best left to a jury that heard all the evidence and not an internet forum opinion

Rubberchikken

oh i think anyone has the right to comment.
no one us above the law no matter who or what they are.

Under His Eye

And so it beings.

the_syco

I wonder will they make it mandatory to have use sirens no matter the time nor location in future?

Also, was the pedestrian using a pedestrian crossing? It doesn't seem to say in the OP's article.

Victor

Under His Eye wrote: »

And so it beings.

Human beans?

the_syco wrote: »

I wonder will they make it mandatory to have use sirens no matter the time nor location in future?

This won't save a deaf person.

Also, was the pedestrian using a pedestrian crossing?

Only obligation to use a pedestrian crossing is when you are within 15 meters of one.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/si/182/made/en/print

46 Rules for Pedestrians

46. (7) On a roadway on which a traffic sign number RPC 001 [pedestrian crossing] has been provided, a pedestrian shall not cross the roadway within 15 metres of the crossing, except by the crossing.

It doesn't seem to say in the OP's article.

Pedestrian was seen by the driver at 200 metres.

Captain Obvious

I've a real issue with juries being offered a lesser charge when they can't agree on the primary one.

Wanderer2010

He 100% will walk, like practically all Gardaí accused of wrongdoing, including the sons or daughters of Gardaí who are accused of wrongdoing. Its always been that way in this country and I expect it always will be.

Captain Obvious

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

He 100% will walk, like practically all Gardaí accused of wrongdoing, including the sons or daughters of Gardaí who are accused of wrongdoing. Its always been that way in this country and I expect it always will be.

Hopefully he will, considering the facts of the case.

Wanderer2010

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

He 100% will walk, like practically all Gardaí accused of wrongdoing, including the sons or daughters of Gardaí who are accused of wrongdoing. Its always been that way in this country and I expect it always will be.

And there will always be people who want to lump a decent and hardworking Garda who’s in an awful position altogether in with all the wrongdoers they can recall or invent.

While I sympathise with the family of the woman, this should never have been brought as far as a prosecution. A misjudged moment in a Gardas life when he was going to help others, that’s all this is. Poor bastard. I really feel for him.

baldbear

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

He 100% will walk, like practically all Gardaí accused of wrongdoing, including the sons or daughters of Gardaí who are accused of wrongdoing. Its always been that way in this country and I expect it always will be.

He made a terrible mistake. Is jailing him the answer? You obviously don't like gards.

sexmag

"Mr Dwyer told the jury that Gda Farrell made an assumption that Mrs Core was aware of the garda patrol car which the State contend was travelling at around 56 to 58 kmh at the point of impact on a road with a 50 kmh speed limit.

He said this was an assumption he couldn't make, citing that the Garda's “Response Driving Course manual” states “It must never be assumed that the sounding instrument will be heard by other road users and pedestrians”.

This is the reason he was convicted,the guard didn't follow protocols from training,he is trained to deal situations like this and by not following his training by assuming the woman was aware of his presence she has now become deceased.

As a guard he has to deal with awful situations no doubt and must do so with urgency but must also doing so by not putting others in danger, this is a reason why armed guards don't just fire back immediately when fired upon.

The speed he was traveling at,the fact he could see the woman by a far distance and the assumption he made that she was aware of his presence cost her her life as he was not able to react in time. It wasn't a simple accident that could not have been avoided,it could have been if things where done right

The idea that this guard should be allowed walk because of the work they do and a bad decision that cost someone their life is absurd, as pointed out above it wasn't just a bad decision,it was a number of factors that contributed to it

the_syco

Victor wrote: »

This won't save a deaf person.

If a deaf person doesn't look both ways when crossing a road, they'll be hit fairly shortly afterwards.

Victor wrote: »

Pedestrian was seen by the driver at 200 metres.

It's odd that the person, on seeing an oncoming Garda car, decides to walk in front of it.

Her last act of defiance cost her dearly.

Captain Obvious

sexmag wrote: »

"Mr Dwyer told the jury that Gda Farrell made an assumption that Mrs Core was aware of the garda patrol car

Is that not Mr Dwyer's assumption?

sexmag

the_syco wrote: »

If a deaf person doesn't look both ways when crossing a road, they'll be hit fairly shortly afterwards.


It's odd that the person, on seeing an oncoming Garda car, decides to walk in front of it.

Her last act of defiance cost her dearly.

It's says pedestrian was seen by the GARDA at 200m, not that the pedestrian seen the garda,no one will be able to confirm that

kippy

sexmag wrote: »

"Mr Dwyer told the jury that Gda Farrell made an assumption that Mrs Core was aware of the garda patrol car which the State contend was travelling at around 56 to 58 kmh at the point of impact on a road with a 50 kmh speed limit.

He said this was an assumption he couldn't make, citing that the Garda's “Response Driving Course manual” states “It must never be assumed that the sounding instrument will be heard by other road users and pedestrians”.

This is the reason he was convicted,the guard didn't follow protocols from training,he is trained to deal situations like this and by not following his training by assuming the woman was aware of his presence she has now become deceased.

As a guard he has to deal with awful situations no doubt and must do so with urgency but must also doing so by not putting others in danger, this is a reason why armed guards don't just fire back immediately when fired upon.

The speed he was traveling at,the fact he could see the woman by a far distance and the assumption he made that she was aware of his presence cost her her life as he was not able to react in time. It wasn't a simple accident that could not have been avoided,it could have been if things where done right

The idea that this guard should be allowed walk because of the work they do and a bad decision that cost someone their life is absurd, as pointed out above it wasn't just a bad decision,it was a number of factors that contributed to it

This is exactly the thing in my opinion..the training and the rationale for the SOP in that situation had been given to the individual yet the individual did not react as they had been trained to react.
A very sad case, truth be told, but the SOP is in place for good reason.

eagle eye

Seems like a very unfortunate situation all around. I'm surprised the jury found him guilty of careless driving.
I'd expect him to end up with community service maybe even though he went not guilty. I don't blame him for going not guilty though. It was a technical not guilty, not a no remorse type thing.

RobbieMD

sexmag wrote: »

The idea that this guard should be allowed walk because of the work they do and a bad decision that cost someone their life is absurd, as pointed out above it wasn't just a bad decision,it was a number of factors that contributed to it

I imagine a lot of Gardai will be thinking twice before sticking the lights on. It’s a joke that our emergency services all drive using their private licences.

Meanwhile across the water, they’re training police to knock criminals off mopeds. I imagine if a Garda did that, they’d be prosecuted for assault.

Claw Hammer

eagle eye wrote: »

Seems like a very unfortunate situation all around. I'm surprised the jury found him guilty of careless driving.
I'd expect him to end up with community service maybe even though he went not guilty. I don't blame him for going not guilty though. It was a technical not guilty, not a no remorse type thing.

What do you think would happen to you if you saw a Garda at a distance of 200m and you drove straight at him at 56 kmh thinking he would be aware of you, but he wasn't and you killed him?

Your diet would be decided by the prison service for years to come. That's what.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Rmgblue

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What do you think would happen to you if you saw a Garda at a distance of 200m and you drove straight at him at 56 kmh thinking he would be aware of you, but he wasn't and you killed him?

Your diet would be decided by the prison service for years to come. That's what.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Tell us why you would drive straight at a guard after seeing him for 200m?
Tell us, in this situation are you carrying out an emergency response to an activated alarm? Or are you on some other agenda. Give us all the facts.

Captain Obvious

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What do you think would happen to you if you saw a Garda at a distance of 200m and you drove straight at him at 56 kmh thinking he would be aware of you, but he wasn't and you killed him?

Your diet would be decided by the prison service for years to come. That's what.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

This seems to be a misunderstanding of what happened. Afaik, the woman was on the path at the crossing when the garda saw her. He didn't drive at her. She stepped out in the road. The criticism is that he didn't begin braking when he saw her and only started braking when she stepped in the road.

sexmag

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Afaik, the woman was on the path at the crossing when the garda saw her. He didn't drive at her. She stepped out in the road. The criticism is that he didn't begin braking when he saw her and only started braking when she stepped in the road.

And this is the issue.

Training and procedure was not followed.

It cannot be assumed that the pedestrian was aware of the cars presence,they may be listening to noise cancelling headphones etc, in anticipation of this the guard must prepare to stop or at least slow as they may step on the road. In this instance this is what happened,the pedestrian stepped out and the guard hadn't slowed meaning he did not have enough time to react and stop the car and she was unfortunately hit.

If a driver of a car proceeds through a green light and hits a pedestrian who has walked on the road,they are at fault as the rules state you can only proceed when safe to do so.

The guards have in their training that pedestrians cannot be assumed to be aware of the speeding cars presence regardless of sirens etc.

It's an awful situation for all involved however the facts of the case as we see them are that the guard did not follow his training and this cost someone their life.

Rmgblue

sexmag wrote: »

And this is the issue.

Training and procedure was not followed.

It cannot be assumed that the pedestrian was aware of the cars presence,they may be listening to noise cancelling headphones etc, in anticipation of this the guard must prepare to stop or at least slow as they may step on the road. In this instance this is what happened,the pedestrian stepped out and the guard hadn't slowed meaning he did not have enough time to react and stop the car and she was unfortunately hit.

If a driver of a car proceeds through a green light and hits a pedestrian who has walked on the road,they are at fault as the rules state you can only proceed when safe to do so.

The guards have in their training that pedestrians cannot be assumed to be aware of the speeding cars presence regardless of sirens etc.

It's an awful situation for all involved however the facts of the case as we see them are that the guard did not follow his training and this cost someone their life.

A tragic accident. I don’t believe sentencing a guard as a result, a hard working honest man, is the answer - just to make an example of him.

sexmag

Rmgblue wrote: »

A tragic accident. I don’t believe sentencing a guard as a result, a hard working honest man, is the answer - just to make an example of him.

It's not an accident,accident implies there is no one at fault.

As stated the guard did not follow training and procedure which resulted in the loss of life.

Had the guard slowed when he saw the pedestrian the outcome would have been vastly different.

I'm not disputing this man may be a hard working honest human but when your job involves highly dangerous situations with the risk of loss of life you must follow protocols,training and procedures. This is why he has been found to be wrong

eagle eye

sexmag wrote:

I'm not disputing this man may be a hard working honest human but when your job involves highly dangerous situations with the risk of loss of life you must follow protocols,training and procedures. This is why he has been found to be wrong

I wonder was he up to date with training?
The emergency services in this country have an awful record with being up to date with training.

eagle eye

Also just thinking that this man could have been in this same situation ten times in the past and each time the person stopped. It's easy to start assuming that it's going to happen every time.

Victor

Rmgblue wrote: »

A tragic accident. I don’t believe sentencing a guard as a result, a hard working honest man, is the answer - just to make an example of him.

You are making emotional assertions, for which we have no evidence of their veracity.

sexmag

eagle eye wrote: »

It's easy to start assuming that it's going to happen every time.

which is why their training says you shouldn't

eagle eye

sexmag wrote:

which is why their training says you shouldn't

Amazing how you skipped over my post questioning if his training was up to date.
As I said the emergency services in this country have an awful record at keeping employees up to date in training.

mynamejeff

eagle eye wrote: »

Amazing how you skipped over my post questioning if his training was up to date.
As I said the emergency services in this country have an awful record at keeping employees up to date in training.

correct .

they are trained once and never updated or give refreshers

and in the end of the training it is made clear that inspite of any training that they are given at the end of the day everything is going to be hung around thier necks

ambulance drivers getting penalty points for speeding to critically ill patients

criminals pissing away from gardai because they know cant chase them ,


what a world you legal worthies have made for us :rolleyes::rolleyes:

mynamejeff

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

He 100% will walk, like practically all Gardaí accused of wrongdoing, including the sons or daughters of Gardaí who are accused of wrongdoing. Its always been that way in this country and I expect it always will be.

agenda much ?

sexmag

eagle eye wrote: »

Amazing how you skipped over my post questioning if his training was up to date.
As I said the emergency services in this country have an awful record at keeping employees up to date in training.

Training was up to date? From what I'm aware it is basic training and has not been changed, what would being up to date have to do with a basic training that they should already know?
This isn't being up to date with a new traffic law,it's high speed driving in areas where the speed limit is lower and pedestrians cross the road, which means greater care musr be taken

Victor

mynamejeff wrote: »

ambulance drivers getting penalty points for speeding to critically ill patients

Read this post: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=108916640&postcount=4 If they comply with the conditions, they shouldn't be getting penalty points.

eagle eye

sexmag wrote:

Training was up to date? From what I'm aware it is basic training and has not been changed, what would being up to date have to do with a basic training that they should already know? This isn't being up to date with a new traffic law,it's high speed driving in areas where the speed limit is lower and pedestrians cross the road, which means greater care musr be taken

When did you do your driving test? If it was over ten years ago then I'll ask if you are now fully up to date with all the rules of the road.
Even at that driving a police car, van, truck, an ambulance or fire engine or any other vehicle which has sirens and lights is much more difficult and dangerous.
Bus and Truck drivers have to renew their CPC license by doing a certain number of hours training every five years.
For the most part you'll find that people in the emergency services in this country are not up to date with refresher courses and/or legally required training.
You'll hear middle management tell those who are eager to stay up to date that they are exempt as they work in the emergency services.
It's quite shocking what the public sector gets away with in this country. They will train their own guys as trainers but they never get to go out and actually train anybody.

sexmag

eagle eye wrote: »

When did you do your driving test? If it was over ten years ago then I'll ask if you are now fully up to date with all the rules of the road.
Even at that driving a police car, van, truck, an ambulance or fire engine or any other vehicle which has sirens and lights is much more difficult and dangerous.
Bus and Truck drivers have to renew their CPC license by doing a certain number of hours training every five years.
For the most part you'll find that people in the emergency services in this country are not up to date with refresher courses and/or legally required training.
You'll hear middle management tell those who are eager to stay up to date that they are exempt as they work in the emergency services.
It's quite shocking what the public sector gets away with in this country. They will train their own guys as trainers but they never get to go out and actually train anybody.

You're pretty much just ramming home my point.

Just because he may not have been up to date doesn't take away from the fact that it's a highly dangerous situation and all precautions must be taken.

He may have 9 times out of 10 slowed due to pedestrians and this time he did not.

Or he may never have slowed at all in previous scenarios

Both show negligence and that's not down to not being up to date with training.

BaronVon

It's a difficult situation to balance the needs of getting somewhere urgently in an emergency situation, while making progress, and doing so as safely as possible. The reason of having blue lights and sirens is to warn other road users that the emergency vehicle is moving at variance with other traffic.

The vast, vast majority of other road users understand this, and comply, and this is why accidents such as this are few and far between.

I'm not aware of the full details of the trial, which lasted 5/6 days, but based on the media reports the driver made an assumption that the pedestrian was aware of him. We all make assumptions all the time, most of them very warranted. It would be impossible to make progress driving an emergency vehicle without making such assumptions. Tragically in this case, the guard appears to have made the wrong assumption.

For the training manual to say that you can never make an assumption is an arse covering exercise typical of most training type things to alleviate them of responsibility if something does go wrong IMO. You make assumptions based on the evidence available to you at the time, from training, and from experience. We all do it daily, in all walks of life.

However, at the end of the day, he collided with a pedestrian, who had the right of way, and he has been made answerable for his actions. Unfortunately, there are no winners in these situations.

sexmag

infacteh wrote: »

I'm not aware of the full details of the trial, which lasted 5/6 days, but based on the media reports the driver made an assumption that the pedestrian was aware of him. We all make assumptions all the time, most of them very warranted. It would be impossible to make progress driving an emergency vehicle without making such assumptions. Tragically in this case, the guard appears to have made the wrong assumption.

For the training manual to say that you can never make an assumption is an arse covering exercise typical of most training type things to alleviate them of responsibility if something does go wrong IMO. You make assumptions based on the evidence available to you at the time, from training, and from experience. We all do it daily, in all walks of life.

You can safely assume that someone on the far side of a path wont jump out onto the road but you can't assume someone on the edge won't step out. That's the issue I believe

eagle eye

sexmag wrote:

You can safely assume that someone on the far side of a path wont jump out onto the road but you can't assume someone on the edge won't step out. That's the issue I believe

Ever drive in rural Ireland? You see cars flying out a side road as you travel on the main road. Should you be prepared to stop in case one of them comes out in front of you?
As the previous poster said we all make decisions whilst driving all the time.

If there was alcoholic or drugs involved then he would deserve to go down for this. The man was sober, doing his job as best he felt he could. He made a mistake, it was just an accident. Unfortunately the result was a loss of life but imo it's not doing anybody any favours, nor is it justice, to see this man convicted be of this.

pablo128

RobbieMD wrote: »

I imagine a lot of Gardai will be thinking twice before sticking the lights on. It’s a joke that our emergency services all drive using their private licences.

Meanwhile across the water, they’re training police to knock criminals off mopeds. I imagine if a Garda did that, they’d be prosecuted for assault.

I've seen guards knock lads off mopeds plenty of times. They wouldn't be shy about it.

mynamejeff

pablo128 wrote: »

I've seen guards knock lads off mopeds plenty of times. They wouldn't be shy about it.

and it doesn't make headline news ?

massive claims ? allegations of police brutality rioting and violence ?

pablo128

mynamejeff wrote: »

and it doesn't make headline news ?

massive claims ? allegations of police brutality rioting and violence ?

Claims? LOL. I'd say 95% of the time the lads went running and the other 5% of the time they got nicked.

It's not like chasing scramblers which can probably do 0-100kph quicker than most performance cars. Mopeds are seriously slow in comparison.

mynamejeff

pablo128 wrote: »

Claims? LOL. I'd say 95% of the time the lads went running and the other 5% of the time they got nicked.

It's not like chasing scramblers which can probably do 0-100kph quicker than most performance cars. Mopeds are seriously slow in comparison.

ya

well thats just not true . if it were the first time it happened there would be mass outrage on the internet

they might dump the moped on the green or where ever and run away but they are not being rammed by garda cars

pablo128

mynamejeff wrote: »

ya

well thats just not true . if it were the first time it happened there would be mass outrage on the internet

they might dump the moped on the green or where ever and run away but they are not being rammed by garda cars

Yeah I'm making it up. :rolleyes:
I've seen it in Ballyfermot, Tallaght and Clondalkin. I had a guard pull up beside me on my motorcycle one day and attempt to kick me off. He was on a bike too.

And yes, he had a reason to try to stop me. I had taken numerous chases off him on his Kawasaki GT550, just because I knew I had the beating of him. Until he chased me that day on a pan European 1100. He was only chuffed with himself, so he was.:D

mynamejeff

pablo128 wrote: »

Yeah I'm making it up. :rolleyes:
I've seen it in Ballyfermot, Tallaght and Clondalkin. I had a guard pull up beside me on my motorcycle one day and attempt to kick me off. He was on a bike too.

And yes, he had a reason to try to stop me. I had taken numerous chases off him on his Kawasaki GT550, just because I knew I had the beating of him. Until he chased me that day on a pan European 1100. He was only chuffed with himself, so he was.:D

sure

didnt know (you thought) your second name was escobar :pac::pac::pac:

Captain Obvious

pablo128 wrote: »

Yeah I'm making it up. :rolleyes:
I've seen it in Ballyfermot, Tallaght and Clondalkin.

You are most certainly making it up. Unless you are going back over a decade.

sexmag

eagle eye wrote: »

Ever drive in rural Ireland? You see cars flying out a side road as you travel on the main road. Should you be prepared to stop in case one of them comes out in front of you?

Yes and no,no because your driver training does not cover people bolting out of a side road in their car,Yes because we are thought to expect the unexpected.

eagle eye wrote: »

The man was sober, doing his job as best he felt he could. He made a mistake, it was just an accident. Unfortunately the result was a loss of life but imo it's not doing anybody any favours, nor is it justice, to see this man convicted be of this.

Well as with all sentencing it is supposed to be a deterrent, he has already been convicted,the sentence will be given to deter further incidents of this nature by trained Gardai and emergency service personnel and again it wasn't an accident,that implies no one is at fault,as per the conviction this guard was at fault.

pablo128

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You are most certainly making it up. Unless you are going back over a decade.

How can you possibly say I'm wrong? Can you prove it. My own incident was 20 years ago, but I've seen mopeds getting a nudge up until last year.

You know, I've noticed on Boards.ie there's a certain subset that will call you a liar no matter what. Thanks wh0res no doubt.:rolleyes:

Captain Obvious

pablo128 wrote: »

How can you possibly say I'm wrong? Can you prove it. My own incident was 20 years ago, but I've seen mopeds getting a nudge up until last year.

You know, I've noticed on Boards.ie there's a certain subset that will call you a liar no matter what. Thanks wh0res no doubt.:rolleyes:

I worked there for five years.