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

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.

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,

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.