Meanwhile on the Roads...

The neck on some people, guess the previous 91 convictions of which 8 were for no insurance weren't an impediment. The €500 fine is pathetic as it would cost the driver multiples of that if he had a valid license but at least he can mull his decisions in prison. Social welfare needs to be confiscated though as how is he being handed €450/w.

I had a look at that stretch on streetview and its a perfectly normal stretch of road that slowly graduates from 100, to 80, to 60, to 50. That's normal around ireland, albeit how many hundreds of metres each graduation is will differ.

Surely the motivation to obey the speed limit, if you wouldn't otherwise, is the fear of getting done by a van you won't spot in time. Having it visible way off in the distance is a waste of time. Poor motorists again

It's called an 'ancillary disqualification order', Judges can apply a driving ban for virtually any conviction in which a vehicle was used in the commission of a crime.

S27 of revised Road Traffic Act 1961

It's a discretionary driving ban that gives significant leeway to District Court judges to disqualify someone for driving for an offence that itself doesn't give rise to a driving disqualification. The whole purpose of it is to be a 'catch all' where a judge can you use their judgment, experience and discretion to disqualify someone for driving because it would be in the public interest, given the totality of the circumstances involving a conviction which itself doesn't give rise to a driving ban.

Why would their then be multitudes of discretionary driving bans for burglars?

You're also writing about the 'intentionality' of something being relevant to the commission of a crime, when that's not in any way related to the law.

This case is itself an example of an ancillary driving ban, but you're insistent on denying that for some reason.

Ironically, while torturing yourself trying to find out how people can receive driving bans for road rage, you're now ignoring someone who provided you with the relevant legislation as to how people receive driving bans for road rage.

To be blunt, it's quite clear you're not interested in an actual discussion and will hold on to your original (and incorrect, as I showed) opinion no matter what. So beyond correcting any further wrong information you post, I'll know better than to actually try help you understand why you're wrong in the future.

To briefly sum up your argument:

The original Judge was incorrect in law to apply a driving disqualification, despite the appeal only being an appeal on the severity of the sentence and not an appeal on a point of law. The article makes no mention of an appeal on a point of law, and an appeal on a point of law would generally go to a different court, but I believe it was an appeal on a disqualification order being illegally applied. I don't understand what 'commission of a crime' means, I believe how intentional a crime was changes the definition of 'commission of a crime' even though I don't actually understand its legal meaning anyway, and I expect you to provide multitudes of examples of a rarely used and entirely discretionary law even though neither Circuit Court nor District Court judgements are published.