Drink driving summons

inthenip

inthenip wrote: »

Was the case dismissed or not from that article? Answer the question. I understand it was from 10 years ago.

The two people I know got off without a blemish on their record. The case was dismissed.

I don't really care anymore as if your so naive to think that this still doesn't happen you havnt a clue.

Whether it was laziness on the judges part I don't know.

Your taking the opinion of people who ARE NOT Solicitors, remember that, but act like they would love to be.

Yes he got off but not because of the summons which is your claim. Do you know what direct evidence is? If not I can explain it. It's what you tell the judge under oath as a witness.

I have prosecuted dozens of drink driver's. I have lost some of those cases. Never for a mistake on the summons because the summons IS NOT DIRECT EVIDENCE. I have never gotten the address wrong either if I'm honest but then I'm in the city and addresses are straight forward affairs. I have made mistakes in direct evidence too, it's not remotely what you are claiming happens.

So you can keep your naive comments for the bar with your mates, the people here aren't that gullible and know your talking ****e be they solicitors or not (some are by the way)

GM228

inthenip wrote: »

Your taking the opinion of people who ARE NOT Solicitors, remember that, but act like they would love to be.

Any 10 year old newspaper reports or people you know to confirm that

Joking aside, there are plenty of solicitors, barristers and legal eagles on this forum, a few of us have provided input to this thread, but when whoever needs one finds a solicitor to advise in person I hope you they tell them that they are clueless also.

Your mere attendance in court (uness you specifically challenge a fundamental flaw in the summons which prejudices your right to a fair trial) remedies any defect in a summons, once you are in court and subject to the courts jurisdiction the summons is of no consequence.

Oh and it's also worth noting that where there is a fundamental flaw with the summons the case will be struck out as opposed to dismissed as the court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the case, and it's always possible to issue a new summons when a case is struck out.

MikeCairo78

Trans Ann wrote: »

Wow a bit ridiculous he should've got solicitor to speed it up couldn't he???. Apparently citizen information informed my friend it will be six months max to wait for this one so he has another two months I guess. Some people mentioned that already in this thread also.
So that be that.

The six months is the time limit for when the Garda in question has to apply for the summons. The actually serving of same summons there is a bit of leeway, and is up to a year and possibly 2 years, but defo 1 year. I wont comment on the ins and outs of what happened.

Uncle Pierre

GM228 wrote: »

it's also worth noting that where there is a fundamental flaw with the summons the case will be struck out as opposed to dismissed as the court has no jurisdiction to dismiss the case, and it's always possible to issue a new summons when a case is struck out.

Thanks for this. It's a nuance which I didn't actually realise myself. Unlike certain others, I'm willing to accept the word of the more knowledgeable folk here!

GM228

MikeCairo78 wrote: »

The six months is the time limit for when the Garda in question has to apply for the summons. The actually serving of same summons there is a bit of leeway, and is up to a year and possibly 2 years, but defo 1 year. I wont comment on the ins and outs of what happened.

There's no time limit for service of a summons.

Bobtheman

The pontificating on this thread is nauseating. Id say in bygone times they'd be out with their stones etc
The truth of the matter is the vast majority of drink drivers don't kill anybody or harm anybody. But it is wrong.
You'd think all the people on this thread are pious individuals who pay all their taxes and tend to the poor in their spare time. Commit no sin. Not even sins of omission.
I'm still a bit confused why your mate quit his job ? There are about ten points of law to be proved in a drink driving case. Thus a conviction ain't a certainty. So to just walk away from a job seems incredibly stupid.
I'm not condoning drink driving. It is stupid .
Just the usual over the top rock throwing by people. Nauseating.

GM228

10 points of law?

For the majority of drink driving cases only 2 things need to established - that you were over the limit and driving/in charge of a vehicle in a public place.

In some cases there is a lot more legal tests to be satisfied depending on any defences or points of law raised, but the majority are as above.

The pigeon man

Cork_Guest wrote: »

Sorry what? Nah no way, no excuse for drink driving at all! He could have just stayed where he was and got up early to let his mate in! It’s all ok this time cos he didn’t mow someone down and some poor family have to lose a loved one, especially having lost a cousin in the same way!

The depression is the least deserved for taking a stupid chance with such serious consequences!

You talk about families losing loved ones from drink driving and how terrible it is.

Then you say this man deserves depression. This country lost 421 lives to suicide last year. What about those families?

I wouldn't wish such a serious illness on anyone.

Bobtheman

GM228 wrote: »

10 points of law?

For the majority of drink driving cases only 2 things need to established - that you were over the limit and driving/in charge of a vehicle in a public place.

In some cases there is a lot more legal tests to be satisfied depending on any defences or points of law raised, but the majority are as above.

You ain't a solicitor. Nor am I. I recall a cop saying that . It is not as simple as failing a blood test or breathalyser. An amazing amount of drink driving cases get thrown out for a variety of reasons. Just goggle it. I just find it incredible that a guy would walk off a job before the case has gone before a judge ? If that's the case the guy is indeed quite thick.

Bass Reeves

Bobtheman wrote: »

You ain't a solicitor. Nor am I. I recall a cop saying that . It is not as simple as failing a blood test or breathalyser. An amazing amount of drink driving cases get thrown out for a variety of reasons. Just goggle it. I just find it incredible that a guy would walk off a job before the case has gone before a judge ? If that's the case the guy is indeed quite thick.

As the old saying goes ''there is many a spill between cup and lip''

hierro

inthenip wrote: »

Funny how I know three people that got away with it because of this. The judge threw it out.

All within the last two years. Two went through the same checkpoint.

Ah, may be a MAT checkpoint which wasn't carried out at the exact authorised location. Different gravy that.

Have you missed https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/drivers-saved-by-the-steam-of-their-pee-27378556.html and this https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/drunken-drivers-pee-steam-defence-fails-27380176.html

Thing is, a precedence cannot be established in the district court. Gardaí are successful the majority of the time but sometimes the benefit of the doubt which lies with the defendant is successful. Indeed both the stories I've linked and the article you shared indicate that there are there are huge discrepancies between different parts of the country involving Gardaí who are largely similarly trained and similarly competent.

You've proven nothing and calling out such an established poster as GM is the cherry on that cupcake. OP or any other who face such charges, consult with a local practicing lawyer.

Bobtheman

Just came across this thread and amazed at the sanctimonious twats that populate it. People should not drink drive but virtue signaling changes nothing.

whomitconcerns

It's ok.. They were all killed by drink drivers 15 months ago when this thread was current.....

sugarman20

In the land of Boards only the OP makes mistakes, everyone else is perfect.

Richmond Ultra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/114586293#Comment_114586293

The courts are backlogged with summons. They are months behind. Covid put everything back.

Claw Hammer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118509641#Comment_118509641

The Courts are not backlogged with the issuing of summons which is almost invariably done electronically. They are backlogged with processing cases after the summons have been issued.

Richmond Ultra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118513429#Comment_118513429

You summed it up. Summons are applied for in that time but it takes months to reach the courts.

whomitconcerns

This post is 2 years old... Time to move on..👍

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528415#Comment_118528415

Na You just go to the end

whomitconcerns

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118528933#Comment_118528933

Yes, it was 18 months without comment at that stage.. This is old and dead. 😁