nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Garda accuses you of being on the phone driving when you werent and you get a fine

LotharIngum

This has happened to me before.
Garda stops you and gives you a fine for being on the phone while driving and you were not at all. You cant do anything about it because his word will be taken about it.

Im not the only person its happened to either.

So the same thing happens to a friend the other day except the garda didn't cop on that said friend had a dashcam and it recorded front, back and sound. The garda was very nasty to him and slapped him with a fine for being on the phone while driving. Friend went home and checked the video and its all there to prove his innocence but since yer man was so mean to him he wants to do as much damage as possible.

So he wants to go to court and either produce the video there or just go ahead and get the summons and then send the paper to the papers or put it on social media. Basically he is trying to figure out how to do the most damage to this particular gard and to highlight this sharp practice. He doesn't care if it costs him points or fines.

Has anyone else ever been accused f doing something by a garda that they didn't and still got punished for the non crime?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

demanufactured

Ten of Swords wrote: »

What's your friends YouTube channel called?

Unrelated matter

Asking for a friend...

CycleDub

The J Stands for Jay

STB. wrote: »

The Blur faces option is within Youtube itself, Video Enhancements, Additional Features, Blur all faces, apply.

Now this is worth reading the thread for.

Captain Obvious

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Lucky for a number of gaurds involved in the Jobstown incident.

Not really. There is a common law offence of perjury which requires two witnesses. The issue with the Gardaí in Jobstown would be that perjury requires intentional dishonesty. And despite your best hopes, such a thing could not be proven.

The Tetrarch

SteM wrote: »

"do as much damage as possible" ffs. Tell your friend that in real life things don't work like they do on the telly.

Just go down to the station with the video and see what the superintendent says maybe?

Has the OP ever heard the expression "circle the wagons"?
If he tries to prove the Gardai wrong it will not end well.
Every time he moves he will be stopped, questioned, asked for his licence, and any other excuse to cause him grief.

[Deleted User]

wexfordman2 wrote: »

No, we can't assume anything, beyond taking what the op posted as being the case with which we are debating. The op is asking for opinions based on his/her story, not anything else, so any opinions must be based on that story.

If the op is not telling the truth, then that is his/her issue as the opinions and replies are based in the assumption that the op is telling the truth.

Anything else, is just people making stuff up. If you don't believe the op, or are unable to offer an opinion under the assumption that the op is being truthful, then perhaps you shouldn't reply at all.

But not believing the OP is in itself an opinion and thus as valid as any opinion in the thread.

Avatar MIA

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Has the OP ever heard the expression "circle the wagons"?
If he tries to prove the Gardai wrong it will not end well.
Every time he moves he will be stopped, questioned, asked for his licence, and any other excuse to cause him grief.

Croppy lie down.

Couldn't live like that.

goat2

oLoonatic wrote: »

Go speak with the guard and show the footage. and for the love of jasus dont post the video anywhere.

Do not hand up the video, give a copy of it if you do decide to hand up the evidence of what actually happened,

Outlaw Pete

Are there no phone activity log apps that would sit in the background but log each time a phone's screen is touched? Be quite useful.

goat2

LotharIngum wrote: »

This has happened to me before.
Garda stops you and gives you a fine for being on the phone while driving and you were not at all. You cant do anything about it because his word will be taken about it.

Im not the only person its happened to either.

So the same thing happens to a friend the other day except the garda didn't cop on that said friend had a dashcam and it recorded front, back and sound. The garda was very nasty to him and slapped him with a fine for being on the phone while driving. Friend went home and checked the video and its all there to prove his innocence but since yer man was so mean to him he wants to do as much damage as possible.

So he wants to go to court and either produce the video there or just go ahead and get the summons and then send the paper to the papers or put it on social media. Basically he is trying to figure out how to do the most damage to this particular gard and to highlight this sharp practice. He doesn't care if it costs him points or fines.

Has anyone else ever been accused f doing something by a garda that they didn't and still got punished for the non crime?

If this is the case, he has his evidence right there, a picture and recording paints a thousand words

r93kaey5p2izun

Whatever about the criticisms of the fella wanting to "do as much damage" over a fairly minor incident, the fact so many posters state or imply that someone making a legitimate complaint about poor Garda conduct would likely be targeted by them and suffer harassment says it all really. Hard to believe normal people say this like it's a matter of course, acceptable, and to be expected.

the_pen_turner

what is really concerning is that there is nothing to stop a guard just dreaming up were on the phone and giving you points and a fine.
in lots of cases that could loose you your job.

unless you have a concrete way of proving your inocence there is nothing you can do

goat2

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what is really concerning is that there is nothing to stop a guard just dreaming up were on the phone and giving you points and a fine.
in lots of cases that could loose you your job.

unless you have a concrete way of proving your inocence there is nothing you can do

This is making me think, that a dash cam would be an advantage to have in car, will be looking up one

shar01

Kolten Wrong Arm wrote: »

Whatever about the criticisms of the fella wanting to "do as much damage" over a fairly minor incident, the fact so many posters state or imply that someone making a legitimate complaint about poor Garda conduct would likely be targeted by them and suffer harassment says it all really. Hard to believe normal people say this like it's a matter of course, acceptable, and to be expected.

Couldn't agree more. But that's the reality - normal people have no experience dealing the guards other than checkpoints and form filling. If I'm stopped by a guard and they say they want to search my car under section 5 of the Ya Fecking Eejit Act 1876, I haven't a clue if that's real or not* so I'll just say off you go guard.

*i'm guessing not, can't see it on Irishstatutebook.ie

"Normal" people have too much to lose and don't need the grief. The reality is I'd probably just pay the fine and try and move on.

the_pen_turner

goat2 wrote: »

This is making me think, that a dash cam would be an advantage to have in car, will be looking up one

i have a forward facing dash cam but am seriously conidering getiing an internal facing one.
for the sake of a 100 euro maybe it would pay for itself in one situtaion like this

the_pen_turner

shar01 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. But that's the reality - normal people have no experience dealing the guards other than checkpoints and form filling. If I'm stopped by a guard and they say they want to search my car under section 5 of the Ya Fecking Eejit Act 1876, I haven't a clue if that's real or not* so I'll just say off you go guard.

*i'm guessing not, can't see it on Irishstatutebook.ie

"Normal" people have too much to lose and don't need the grief. The reality is I'd probably just pay the fine and try and move on.

thats the problem.
most of us are ignorant to the law or at least the technicalities of it.

a guard would get some shock if you called their bluff with something like . section 3 paragraphy 4 of xyz act 1994 superseeds that . obviously you would have to be right but it would be fun to see their face

[Deleted User]

the_pen_turner wrote: »

what is really concerning is that there is nothing to stop a guard just dreaming up were on the phone and giving you points and a fine.
in lots of cases that could loose you your job.

unless you have a concrete way of proving your inocence there is nothing you can do

But is there any real evidence that that happens.

the_pen_turner

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But is there any real evidence that that happens.

there are at least 3 posters in this thread claiming it to be true
i can only assume they are genuine and truthfull.

shar01

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But is there any real evidence that that happens.

I recall a thread in Motors where someone was driving at had their head resting on the hand (elbow on the window ledge). Guard pulled them over for being on phone.

The AGS should drag itself into the 21st century and equip its members with body cams.

tomoliver

shar01 wrote: »

I recall a thread in Motors where someone was driving at had their head resting on the hand (elbow on the window ledge). Guard pulled them over for being on phone.

The AGS should drag itself into the 21st century and equip its members with body cams.

I don't think they even have working radios

fxotoole

OP. Your friend is taking the nuclear option as the first port of call. This is not the way to go.

Speak to the super. Present the evidence in a level headed calm manner. Lodge a formal complaint.

If he still has no joy, refer the case to GSOC.

If he still doesn't get any satisfaction,then and only then consider going to the media or posting the video online.

McMurphy

shar01 wrote: »

I recall a thread in Motors where someone was driving at had their head resting on the hand (elbow on the window ledge). Guard pulled them over for being on phone.

The AGS should drag itself into the 21st century and equip its members with body cams.

I believe that may have been my good self.

My word against his.

Got turfed out of court in the end because the fcukwit guard couldn't copy my surname correctly from my license to his notebook, after having a good 10mins or more to check and double check the spelling.

The judge was rightly pissed off at him too.

AlekSmart

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

[/b]

But not believing the OP is in itself an opinion and thus as valid as any opinion in the thread.

The thread title suggests a far more concrete scenario than what the OP is actually about....

The OP (not the Friend) quite clearly has issues with Gards,over and above what his friend may have.

That is ,of course,if "Friend" is an accurate term at all ?

LotharIngum wrote: »

No argument there. He can be a dick for sure. I wouldn't call him a close friends. Just a friend from work really. But he has me tagged as his partner on his quest because when he was talking about it I said that it happened me too. So i'll get the low down of every step of the way im sure and i'll keep ye up to date.

I really posted here just to ask if anyone else had ever got punished for something they actually didn't do.

On balance,it's looking like the Clergyman has the edge ?

shar01

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I believe that may have been my good self.

My word against his.

Got turfed out of court in the end because the fcukwit guard couldn't copy my surname correctly from my license to his notebook, after having a good 10mins or more to check and double check the spelling.

The judge was rightly pissed off at him too.

I remembered it because it cured me of doing the same.

But still your time wasted.

hunter164

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Bit of an assumption.

I hope the video shows a clip of the guys tax compliance cert so that can be proven too.

Target my post any way you like just to hide the fact that the honest joe soap in Ireland is targetted and reportedly bullied by a Garda for a reported minor offence.

Yet at the same time we have convicted criminals with 24 hour protection and an ‘ethnic minority’ that won’t leave places that they’ve been told to leave but the Garda won’t physically remove them.

Potential-Monke

So much mis-information in this thread. Let me make this easier for future replies:

Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 2006:

3.— (1) A person shall not while driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place hold a mobile phone.

The offence is holding a mobile phone. Not using. Not touching. Holding. You don't have to be doing anything with it. Just holding it. End of.

While the OP is on about his friend, and that he saw the video, that's still not 100% clear that he wasn't holding the phone at any stage, as admitted it only shows the head and shoulders. While the Garda is heard to say 'I saw you with it up to your ear', or something to that effect, it still doesn't mean he wasn't holding the phone at some stage. That comment would help disprove the Garda, but it doesn't necessarily disprove the case. That would be up to the Judge to decide.

OP, your friend obviously doesn't want to just resolve this, he wants to make a point, and he's completely within his rights to do so. Personally, I would advise him to produce the evidence to the local Super with the intention of getting the fine cancelled. If he doesn't get any joy, certainly proceed to court, but I would recommend a solicitor, as evidence needs a chain, and I'm not sure how dash cams work evidence wise, as your mate would have to prove that it wasn't interfered with or edited in any way. Not sure how one would do that in this day and age, but it's something the Gardaí have to prove, the chain of evidence.

As for the issue in general, yes, Gardaí can make these calls wrong. I certainly did during my 9 years, but unlike the alleged behaviour of the Garda in question, I asked them without accusing and let them hang themselves. Sometimes people who were holding the phone got away with it, because I wasn't 100% on it, and I'm not going to give evidence unless i'm 100% on what I'm saying. But on the flip side, I've also had people who I had caught with the phone in their hand, and even let them know I saw the phone drop when their eyes met mine, but they will claim I must have been seeing things. I had a 78 year old man get out of his car on the side of the road and have a go at me over his claim of innocence. Unlucky for him, it was recorded on the Garda CCTV which just happened to be facing the right way at that time. But Guards do get things wrong, as do people. I'd give a guess that every single one of ye on here who drive have held your phone while driving at some stage.

As for the h'attitude, if it did indeed happen (I still don't believe anyone until I've seen all the evidence from both sides), it was uncalled for. Yes, it's a very high stress job. No, there are no quotas (well, I never had them, one Super did try to tell me I had to get x more of a certain type of ticket, I asked if he wanted me to start prosecuting people who didn't commit the offence, I was never asked for x number again). But there's no need to be abusive. I would like to see the video myself, as I can't imagine your 'on the spectrum' friend sat there like a quiet old lady. Maybe he did, I don't know. But I personally believe he is going the wrong way about this. If he has evidence to the contrary, I would provide a copy to the Super first to prevent it going to court, as someone else pointed out above, a Judge won't be too impressed if there is evidence only being brought up in court, and he may not accept it due to the passage of time/potential to interfere with evidence.

And for everyone else still painting all Gardaí with the same brush because of this incident on a specific day, ye are so wrong. This is 1 incident out of how many thousand stops that day? Yes, there is corruption, yes there are dickhead guards, but it's still only a small % of them. The Garda on the street is possibly the most honest of them all, and most of the corruption starts at higher ranks, who are only a small % of the force in general. The corrupt dickhead ones need to be weeded out, but by tarring them all with the same brush, you're not helping. I left for many reasons, but I could no longer take the abuse levelled at me even though I never did anything wrong myself, and actively tried to prevent people getting arrested/tickets by educating them. I'm much happier mentally since I left, and I don't know how my ex-colleagues keep doing it in the current climate. I'd never go back, and it's because of the public mainly, but management is also toxic, and it starts at the top. Harris seems to be rocking the right parts of the boat, I just hope he doesn't rock it so much that he ends up doing something wrong/accusing the wrong people.

STB.

Potential-Monke wrote: »

So much mis-information in this thread. Let me make this easier for future replies

The offence is holding a mobile phone. Not using. Not touching. Holding. You don't have to be doing anything with it. Just holding it. End of.

While the OP is on about his friend, and that he saw the video, that's still not 100% clear that he wasn't holding the phone at any stage, as admitted it only shows the head and shoulders. While the Garda is heard to say 'I saw you with it up to your ear', or something to that effect, it still doesn't mean he wasn't holding the phone at some stage. That comment would help disprove the Garda, but it doesn't necessarily disprove the case. That would be up to the Judge to decide.

The offence does include touching a phone whilst driving (2014 regs updated this ).

He either saw it or he didn't. Its clear from the video that he couldn't have if the phone was in his pocket and not to his head as claimed, the dashcalm would show.

Guard has no credibility after that, to the charges brought, and witness statement required when challenged.

Originally Posted by LotharIngum

I saw the video.

The cop was very nasty alright but the crux of the matter is that the inside of the car is recorded clears showing him just driving along. He gets stopped and asked why he thinks he was stopped. He says he has no idea. The cop starts mouthing off and telling him he saw him on the phone.
So he just says, I can assure you I wasn't on the phone. I never use the phone while im driving.

The cop says "Don't think im an idiot. I clearly saw you holding a phone to your ear and talking. Are you calling be a liar?"

He just says no, but you didn't see me with the phone to my ear. Its in my pocket. Would you like to check it?

Loads more abuse and expletives and a fine and told not to be such a smart c%nt on future and hes lucky all he is getting is done for the phone.

4ensic15

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Literally the first link.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-haphazard-state-of-perjury-law-1.357008

There is no perjury statute in Ireland at the moment.

What of it? Perjury is a common law offence.

dinorebel

lertsnim wrote: »

Your friend sounds like a dickhead.

Not as much of a dickhead as the guard though to be fair.

twowheelsonly

JustAThought wrote: »

................ - he can then also complain about how he was spoken to and treated. But remember - they are all mates and lifelong friends and will back each other up to the hilt: including their friends in GSOC.

The Tetrarch wrote: »

Has the OP ever heard the expression "circle the wagons"?
If he tries to prove the Gardai wrong it will not end well.
Every time he moves he will be stopped, questioned, asked for his licence, and any other excuse to cause him grief.

If the Cop is an as hole and his colleagues know this already then there'll be no 'circling the wagons'. Not all Cops are mates and lifelong friends who will defend anything their colleagues do. I'd go as far as to say that if this guy is one of those fellas with attitude his colleagues would be delighted to see him get his come-uppance. A lot of them are sick of the bad press they all get thanks to the actions of a few.

Likewise if it goes to court. If this cop has been questioned / criticised / doubted in court before the Judge will go nuts with him if it's finally proven to be true.

Personally I'd be going to the Super and making a complaint and I wouldn't produce or mention the video evidence until the very end. Give them seven days to respond and then take it to the media / online. Make it perfeclty clear that you won't be paying the fine and are quite prepared to go to court with it. If it's going to court then obviously don't post it anywhere in advance.

4ensic15

If the o/p makes it known to the guards that he has a video the charge will not be processed. It will never get to court and nothing will happen.