Appealing €500 Travel fine?

GM228

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If things were that simple, we wouldn't need lawyers. For the record, I'm the absolute opposite of a Boards expert. I'm pointing out that none of the Boards expert know how this will play out either way.

A judge could take a view that a dental appointment followed by an eight day holiday isn't a reasonable excuse.

We don't know how this will play out.

Judges have a lot of freedom when it comes to statutory interpretation, but one thing they can not do is say something is not the case when the law is very specific it is, a court can not add to or delete from express statutory provisions so as to achieve objectives which to the courts appear desirable.

Plumbthedepths

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If things were that simple, we wouldn't need lawyers. For the record, I'm the absolute opposite of a Boards expert. I'm pointing out that none of the Boards expert know how this will play out either way.

A judge could take a view that a dental appointment followed by an eight day holiday isn't a reasonable excuse.

We don't know how this will play out.

The judge is bound by the law, I don't understand your difficulty with this concept. The law allows travel based on essential reasons dentistry is one of them. The OP has documentary evidence to prove the validity of their travel. Anyway I'm done.
I hope the OP ignores most of the ill informed nonsense here.

2012paddy2012

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Personally I would go to court, as travel for dentistry is an essential reason to travel. Only you can decide however. A consultation with a solicitor may be worth your while rather than the opinions of randomers on Board's.

How much is a solicitor going to cost if your going down that road just pay it -or , you can just hand in documentation to the judge and give direct evidence to dispute the fine - He will make the decision - your a day hanging round courts - parking - grub - travel there and back -

BENDYBINN

You had no proof going out.....now you have...you’ll be fine

Time

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

To be fair, continuing treatment in line with a schedule is essential for orthodontic treatment to be successful.

timeToLive

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

Why are incorrect non-facts allowed to be posted in a legal forum :D

drunkmonkey

2012paddy2012 wrote: »

How much is a solicitor going to cost if your going down that road just pay it -or , you can just hand in documentation to the judge and give direct evidence to dispute the fine - He will make the decision - your a day hanging round courts - parking - grub - travel there and back -

If you find one that's in court that day anyway it won't be much, this is easily one where you can represent yourself, just bring along the paperwork showing proof of dentistry work.

poisonated

Maybe I’m missing something but I would think it would be better to just pay the fine than paying (what would presumably be around the same) for a solicitor. I know some people have principles haha but if it was me I don’t think id be arsed to go to court. Then again, if you are continuously going over, it might be worth your while rather than get fines lots of times.

the_syco

sebdavis wrote: »

A dentish take make half a day, max a full day. You stayed 9 days so not really just going to a dentist so I doubt you have a leg to stand on

If you get teeth pulled, it's recommended that you don't fly for at least 48 hours. Depending on the tooth location, OP may have been advised to wait longer before flying again.

Renault 5

IMO don’t pay the fine

And if it was me I wouldn’t go an get a solicitor.

It’s printed in black and white from the Government which you can bring with you as well as your documents

https://assets.gov.ie/121419/b269f1ec-6f97-47d8-aeb0-769429d4a4ff.pdf

HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A - TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS) (COVID-19) (NO. 10) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2021

Page 4

(e) attend a medical or dental appointment, or accompany, to such an appointment, any other person residing with the person, or a vulnerable person.

bilbot79

Not like you went to lanzarote

Go to summons. It'll take ages and by the time you're in court Covid will be gone and the judge won't care

One thing to consider if you don’t pay the fine, is if your name would appear in the paper if you went to court, and if that would influence you either way, but especially if the judge decision went against you?
Could your work or future employment be affected by this? To some people, it won’t matter about how “right” you were- even if the case is thrown out- they may think negatively of you-you’ll have no power over their opinion of you.

Just another factor to consider- that and, if you take legal advice, assistance, the costs may equate to similar to 500 euro, maybe more.

MarkY91

Surely you cpidl have provided proof when flying out? There just be some form of proof in your emails.

Not important now but it's just a thought I had when reading the thread.

PunkIPA

Deleted User wrote: »

One thing to consider if you don’t pay the fine, is if your name would appear in the paper if you went to court

The OP's name might appear in the paper, but I think it's safe to say that it almost certainly won't.

The gardaí have issued around 15,000 fines so far and I'd imagine a lot of those will have gone unpaid, and as such will end up in Court.

The OP would have to be extremely unlucky to be one of the named and shamed (not that they have anything remotely to be ashamed of if what they have posted is correct).

In any event, as has been pointed out here already, travel for the purpose of dental treatment is permitted. If the OP has evidence of this that's the end of the matter and he will be done within minutes.

Deep Thought

Travel for dentist is essential but I would assume that “travel” is not jumping on an aircraft, flying 4500 miles, staying for nine days and then flying 4500 miles back

PunkIPA

Deep Thought wrote: »

Travel for dentist is essential but I would assume that “travel” is not jumping on an aircraft, flying 4500 miles, staying for nine days and then flying 4500 miles back

Your assumption would be incorrect. The "travel" for the purpose of the Act is travel within Ireland. The State has no power to control your movements within another jurisdiction.

The OP travelled to the airport for the purpose of attending a dental appointment outside of the jurisdiction. This is specifically allowed.

What he did thereafter in the Ukraine is entirely irrelevant. He could have travelled onwards to Disneyland for all it matters.

PunkIPA

PunkIPA wrote: »

The OP's name might appear in the paper, but I think it's safe to say that it almost certainly won't.

The gardaí have issued around 15,000 fines so far and I'd imagine a lot of those will have gone unpaid, and as such will end up in Court.

The OP would have to be extremely unlucky to be one of the named and shamed (not that they have anything remotely to be ashamed of if what they have posted is correct).

In any event, as has been pointed out here already, travel for the purpose of dental treatment is permitted. If the OP has evidence of this that's the end of the matter and he will be done within minutes.

A “COVID dentist story” where the person shows it was legitimate travel may very well be the story to print- in the local paper at least - I’ve no idea of likelihood or otherwise but something to stir into the mix when deciding how to approach this

Deep Thought

PunkIPA wrote: »

Your assumption would be incorrect. The "travel" for the purpose of the Act is travel within Ireland. The State has no power to control your movements within another jurisdiction.

The OP travelled to the airport for the purpose of attending a dental appointment outside of the jurisdiction. This is specifically allowed.

What he did thereafter in the Ukraine is entirely irrelevant. He could have travelled onwards to Disneyland for all it matters.

So the travel is within Ireland.. ? So not 4500 miles away? Unless you travel many many times around Ireland?

PunkIPA

Deep Thought wrote: »

So the travel is within Ireland.. ? So not 4500 miles away? Unless you travel many many times around Ireland?

4A. (1) Without prejudice to the generality of Regulation 4, and subject to paragraph (2), an applicable person shall not leave his or her place of residence to go to an airport or port for the purpose of leaving the State without reasonable excuse. (emphasis added)

This is the relevant regulation. The OP is being charged with leaving his place of residence to travel to an airport for the purpose of leaving the State. The few miles between the OP's house and the airport are the only relevant miles to consider in respect of this whole problem.

The question is therefore whether the OP had a reasonable excuse to leave the State. The OP left the State to attend a dental appointment. A dental appointment is definitionally considered a reasonable excuse in the regulations themselves without qualification.

The regulations don't state that the reasonable excuse must be the sole or even the dominant reason for leaving the State.

With respect to the dental appointment itself, the regulations don't even say that it must be an essential or even a reasonable one. You can chalk this down to an oversight, but the fact remains that so long as the OP traveled for the purpose of attending a dental appointment, he is perfectly entitled to take an extended holiday over there. All those chancers who booked dental appointments on the Costa del Sol were also perfectly entitled to do so, whatever Drew Harris might say (provided they actually attended).

PunkIPA

FAO the Mods - I am a new poster here and don't want to break the Charter, since the OP has posed a direct question based on his/her personal circumstances I feel like going into much more detail on this is flirting with offering legal advice.

My advice remains as before - consult a solicitor, many will be happy to offer an initial phone consultation for free and the cost of their appearance on the day should be well below €500. You may qualify for free legal aid or you might get a lawyer willing to appear pro bono. The regulations are clear that travel outside of the State to attend a dental appointment is permitted.

sporina

arleitiss wrote: »

I travelled abroad recently for dentist (yes I know, one of the most lame excuses these days) and got €500 fine on way out of Dublin.

I had no proof on way out - but I came back with a whole file of documents (receipts, letter of proof of attendance which is stamped and signed by clinic and print out from government revenue website confirming payment which was also stamped and signed by clinic).

Why did you not have proof of the appointment on the way out? I assume the appointment was made before date of travel?

Fr Tod Umptious

While I think that this will get thrown out if brought to court because based on the law the OP traveled for essential purposes, I'm still curious as to why the OP did not have an documentation on the way out to show they were going for treatment.

Did it not occur to them that such documentation would be handy in case they were questioned as regards the reason for the trip ?

GerardKeating

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

It depends, I don't have a dentist within my 5km limit, so I have to travel further (as permitted by law) to a dentist.

The Law does not state you have to go to the nearest dentist.

Leave it to go to summons and have your paperwork with you on the day.

The fcpn was correct at the time as the garda had no evidence of essential travel.

That's it really. It's no different than any other fine in procedure. It will be for the judge to make a decision then.

No user here can say what the judge will decide as it's new ground

GerardKeating

GerardKeating wrote: »

It depends, I don't have a dentist within my 5km limit, so I have to travel further (as permitted by law) to a dentist.

The Law does not state you have to go to the nearest dentist.

The law does not state a mythical 5km limit either.

The law states that no non essential travel should occur. A judge could see traveling to another country when there are dentists here, as non essential or they could view all travel of any distance as essential once it's going for an essential reason. Asks the question then if I can travel to donegal to buy food.

We will need to wait and see as I don't think any have actually made it to hearing yet.

Plumbthedepths

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The law does not state a mythical 5km limit either.

The law states that no non essential travel should occur. A judge could see traveling to another country when there are dentists here, as non essential or they could view all travel of any distance as essential once it's going for an essential reason. Asks the question then if I can travel to donegal to buy food.

We will need to wait and see as I don't think any have actually made it to hearing yet.

The law allows for foreign travel for purposes of dental treatment, you are suggesting the judge can find against the OP in defiance of the law?
I thought this was a thread specifically for legal discussion, apparently it's for unfounded nonsense and personal opinion including desire for what some posters would like to see happen to the OP.

AndrewJRenko

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The law allows for foreign travel for purposes of dental treatment, you are suggesting the judge can find against the OP in defiance of the law?
I thought this was a thread specifically for legal discussion, apparently it's for unfounded nonsense and personal opinion including desire for what some posters would like to see happen to the OP.

The law allows for travel for food, but if you travel 80km to get your personal choice of burger, you end up with a fine;

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/offbeat/16-of-the-worst-lockdown-breakers-stung-by-gardai-during-lockdown-three-from-lonely-hearts-to-dublin-airport-chancer/ar-BB1dIGik

bosco12345

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

Why think like this? Fair play to the guy for getting his dental treatment abroad and saving himself probably in the region of €10000 +. Smart move.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The law allows for foreign travel for purposes of dental treatment, you are suggesting the judge can find against the OP in defiance of the law?
I thought this was a thread specifically for legal discussion, apparently it's for unfounded nonsense and personal opinion including desire for what some posters would like to see happen to the OP.

I know how the law and the system work thanks and anyone that does, knows that a new law will be interpreted by a Judge. In some cases it will be sent up for clarification and in other times a decision will create case law. I also know that a new law is very rarely left alone and beyond interpretation.

I am suggesting that a judge may consider travelling to another country to be excessive and not reasonable when there are options locally.

As I said and another user demonstrated, reasons for leaving the house to travel do not allow carte blanche.

PunkIPA

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I know how the law and the system work thanks and anyone that does, knows that a new law will be interpreted by a Judge.

You are correct in saying that the Courts must often engage in statutory interpretation in determining a novel point of law. This will arise in circumstances where there is some ambiguity inherent in the statute. No such ambiguity arises here. The Regulations unambiguously allow for travel outside of the jurisdiction for the purpose of attending a dental appointment.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I am suggesting that a judge may consider travelling to another country to be excessive and not reasonable when there are options locally.

You are again quite correct in this assertion. The judge may very well believe the OP's actions to be both excessive and unreasonable. What the judge cannot do, however, is find the OP guilty of an offence contrary to Regulations on the basis of this opinion.

At the risk of repeating myself and others, the Regulations do not say that the dental appointment must be reasonable. They do not say that the appointment must be urgent. They do not say that the travel must not be excessive or unnecessary in light of domestic alternatives.

All of these may be reasons to be critical of the OP's behaviour, or not, but none of them are legal requirements.

Other "reasonable excuses" are specifically qualified, like moving house, for example:-

4(2)(p) move to another residence where, in all the circumstances of the case, such movement is reasonably necessary,

The fact is that the Regulations are very poorly drafted. Without wanting to open up further irrelevant discussion, there is good reason to believe the guys travelling 80k for a burger may have got off too if they tried to run their case. I'm assuming they just paid the fine, but the right to travel for a takeaway isn't qualified either.

If people don't like this, don't blame the OP, don't blame the judges, blame the Oireachtas.