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

sexmag · 18-12-2018 06:09PM #1

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 · 18-12-2018 06:43PM

Suspended sentence I expect.

GM228 · 18-12-2018 06:44PM

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 · 18-12-2018 07:15PM

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 · 19-12-2018 10:46AM

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

Rubberchikken · 19-12-2018 01:36PM

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 · 19-12-2018 01:47PM

And so it beings.

the_syco · 19-12-2018 02:48PM

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 · 19-12-2018 04:18PM

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 · 19-12-2018 07:04PM

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

Wanderer2010 · 19-12-2018 07:07PM

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 · 19-12-2018 07:16PM

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.

19-12-2018 07:19PM

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 · 19-12-2018 07:23PM

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 · 19-12-2018 08:15PM

"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 · 19-12-2018 08:18PM

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 · 19-12-2018 08:19PM

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 · 19-12-2018 08:20PM

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 · 19-12-2018 08:27PM

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 · 19-12-2018 08:39PM

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 · 20-12-2018 01:43PM

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 · 21-12-2018 06:45PM

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 · 21-12-2018 06:52PM

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 · 21-12-2018 10:03PM

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 · 21-12-2018 10:44PM

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 · 22-12-2018 09:17PM

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 · 22-12-2018 10:09PM

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 · 22-12-2018 10:12PM

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 · 22-12-2018 10:14PM

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 · 22-12-2018 10:50PM

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 · 22-12-2018 11:05PM

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

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

Comments