Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Garda with no licience,tax, and bald tyres kills two and gets a fine!

1…911131415

Comments

  • #302
    lividduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,250 ✭✭✭lividduck


    team2 wrote: »
    its actually a steep fine the norm is a conviction and fine on the most serious offence and the rest are taken into consideration
    Evidence to back that up?
    Actually the norm is a sieries of fines and it is not unusual where three offence occur at the same time to recieve a ban.
    B ut since you appear to have joined Boards to downplay the seriousness of this Guards offences I will presume that nothing anyone says will affect you and the other members of the GRA views.


  • #303
    thebullkf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    team2 wrote: »
    your missing the point totally the chap drove his car and committed a few minor road traffic offences hevrecieved a steep fine for those offences. He did not expect to find two idiots on a motorway rolling around on the ground he will live with that for the rest of his life. None of the offences he committed contributed to the deaths if those lads proof is he was not charged.... You appear to have the view it was all his fault hi can't understand if he wad at fault why wad he not charged with dd causing death can you explain this?

    i can't, of the witnesses, two are directly involved, two are dead, and two are on the run....shambolic.

    Theres more to this that meets the eye.


  • #304
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    thebullkf wrote: »
    the garda who was a passenger is also guilty of negligence.

    this statement is beyond stupid


  • #305
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    thebullkf wrote: »
    isnt it one month.....how long was his tax out....????

    the garda who was a passenger is also guilty of negligence.

    We don't know how long the tax was out, or of his history of paying tax.

    How was the passenger guilty of negligence?


  • #306
    team2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12 ✭team2


    Merch wrote: »
    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

    But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.
    team2 wrote: »
    your missing the point totally the chap drove his car and committed a few minor road traffic offences hevrecieved a steep fine for those offences. He did not expect to find two idiots on a motorway rolling around on the ground he will live with that for the rest of his life. None of the offences he committed contributed to the deaths if those lads proof is he was not charged.... You appear to have the view it was all his fault hi can't understand if he wad at fault why wad he not charged with dd causing death can you explain this?

    Is that what you think? minor! I think they are pretty serious offences, whats the norm, no road tax for more than 3 months, can expect car to be taken off you. If the people that died are stupid, that doesnt mean they deserved to die, because of someone elses carelessness/thoughtlessness.
    By your rationale (and many others) lets say a deaf person crosses the road, you blast away with the horn, they dont hear you, so you drive over them, but you weren't expecting a deaf person, you just assumed they could hear.
    If I was driving along, I'd rather drive the car off the road than hit someone, even if they are somewhere they shouldn't be. Rolling around in a lane on the motorway is idiotic, but the driver shouldn't just assume they can do the limit (or more) as its a motorway, he should not have been driving full stop!
    Yes minor offences that the vast majority of people don't get prosecuted for, may be zero tolerance should be the way forward, if that be the case 90% of people would be off the road, pulling into the junction box 2 points and a fine, crossing over the line waiting to make a turn another 2 points and a fine, pretty soon we are all off the road
    the vast majority of road users commit offences practically every day and thanks to the grace of god the vast majority are not fatal. On this occassion they were but who is to blame not the idiots punching the head off each other in the dark on the motor way
    no its the driver who was foolish enough to commit minor road traffic offences... Correct he shouldn't have been on the road but who is more dangerous in the situation... Its a bit like playing with a loaded gun its going to go off if your careless and in rlthis case the lads were so careless they caused their own deaths


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Merch wrote: »
    By your rationale (and many others) lets say a deaf person crosses the road, you blast away with the horn, they dont hear you, so you drive over them, but you weren't expecting a deaf person, you just assumed they could hear.

    Its hardly an equal comparrison. Its safe to assume he did not see them. Having tax and good tyres wouldnt of improved his vision.


  • #308
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    MagicSean wrote: »
    this statement is beyond stupid

    If she knew he had no d/lic, no tax and bald tyres should she have done something about it? Is she supposed to uphold the law if she was aware of it?


  • #309
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    thebullkf wrote: »
    the garda who was a passenger is also guilty of negligence.

    Why is that?


  • #310
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    hondasam wrote: »
    If she knew he had no d/lic, no tax and bald tyres should she have done something about it? Is she supposed to uphold the law if she was aware of it?

    Legally? No. Morally? Maybe. When you get offered a lift to you perform these checks?


  • #311
    CiaranC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,300 ✭✭✭CiaranC


    Was there any evidence presented that these two were in the middle of the motorway? CCTV footage?


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    foggy_lad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,373 ✭✭✭✭foggy_lad


    HigginsJ wrote: »
    And it's no tthe end of the matter.

    Garda Ombudsman is carrying out a full investigation so he may still have to face further charges.
    Doubt he will face any further charges as his passenger will back up his version of events.
    HigginsJ wrote: »
    It was at night, on an unlit part of the motorway, doing 120kmph.

    I drive home that road every night, I cant imagine that it would be that easy to spot the 2 guys. Doubt they were wearing hi-viz jackets.
    I have driven all over the country on motorways and dual-carriageways as well as national primary and secondary routes at a time when the unofficial speed limit was 100mph. Most of the driving was at night and in the hundresd of thousands of miles I have never killed anyone and not even killed as much as a badger out of the hundreds of creatures I have encountered on the roads in the dead of night, if you are aware and awake you will see everything on the road even on the darkest of nights!
    I have killed a few cats and rabbits/hares that ran from hedgerows into the path of the car at dusk.
    Micky Dolenz wrote: »
    Having a license is a condition of having valid insurance.
    Lying about having a license will void any policy you take out.
    hondasam wrote: »
    It was not man slaughter, they were in the middle of the road fighting, it was pitch black, how could he have seen them.
    He must have closed his tired wee eyes for a minute or two, or maybe his mind was elsewhere like on his passenger? how could he NOT have seen them if he was paying attention!
    Kess73 wrote: »
    He pleaded guilty to all the charges put against him and did not try to plead poverty or make any other excuses.
    That was just a way of sweeping the whole unsavoury affair under the big carpet.
    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Section 38 (6) of the 1961 Act don't think it has been amended,

    <snip>

    (6) Subsections (1) to (5) of this section shall not apply in relation to a member of the Garda Síochána driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in the course of his duty.

    <snip>
    He was not driving in the course of his duties and his station have made a statement that he is not a member of the traffic corps!

    Begs the question now How many members of the traffic corps do not have a driving licence??
    JonathanAnon wrote: »
    I just heard that the guard's solicitor said he "had been on late duty for a number of days prior to this incident, and that he intended going to a dealer when he realised the condition of his car"

    Was he so tired (having worked late duty) that he forgot that he didnt have a license??? Intended going to a dealer, for a car he didnt have a license for? .. was he gonna get somebody else to drive his car to the dealer? Strange statements from the defence, the aim of which I presume was to highlight "mitigating circumstances"
    He was knackered tired and possibly nodding off at the wheel but his passenger will back up his version of events even if they were both not paying attention to the road ahead or if she was somehow distracting him from his driving.

    This guy is responsible for the deaths of two people who might otherwise have lived, He should be sacked and lose his pension entitlements at the very least, he is paid to uphold the paw and instead was quite happily breaking the law!

    It appears there is a lot of strange perks available to Guardai like not having to have a driving licence as well as being able to claim they are on official duty when involved in accidents in their own cars!


  • #313
    team2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12 ✭team2


    lividduck wrote: »
    team2 wrote: »
    its actually a steep fine the norm is a conviction and fine on the most serious offence and the rest are taken into consideration
    Evidence to back that up?
    Actually the norm is a sieries of fines and it is not unusual where three offence occur at the same time to recieve a ban.
    B ut since you appear to have joined Boards to downplay the seriousness of this Guards offences I will presume that nothing anyone says will affect you and the other members of the GRA views.
    nothing to do with who committed the offences its the rational of hang the guard just cause he is a guard that bothers me. I'm not in the GRA or a guard for that matter I like to see a fair perspective on things.. . Ad for backing up the conviction and taking into consoderation go to any district court and you will see it. . . itsva free country I can join any board I like and post any view I like as long as its not offensive wouldn't life be so boring if everyone agreed with each other


  • #314
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    MagicSean wrote: »
    Legally? No. Morally? Maybe. When you get offered a lift to you perform these checks?

    Fair point.
    CiaranC wrote: »
    Was there any evidence presented that these two were in the middle of the motorway? CCTV footage?

    It was never suggested they were any other place. Do you think he hit them and moved them there.


  • #315
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    CiaranC wrote: »
    Was there any evidence presented that these two were in the middle of the motorway? CCTV footage?

    Even if such evidence exists it would not be presented in relation the the charges brought to court. If the charge was dangerous driving causing death then evidence by accident investigators should be presented.


  • #316
    Motorist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Motorist


    Another huge embarrassment for the gardai. It seems a story of lawlessness or incompetence on the part of the gardai breaks every other week.

    I had to despair at the insistence of the garda press office that garda Enda Clifford was not a member of the Traffic Corps. I would say he was, but more importantly why would that even matter!? He is still a garda that was driving around with no licence, tax, and with a defective vehicle - appalling standards by the gardai tax collectors who penalise motorists in their droves for the most minor of road traffic offences (offences less serious than those Clifford was guilty of).

    Also was his insurance not null and void if he had no licence?


  • #317
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    foggy_lad wrote: »

    He was not driving in the course of his duties and his station have made a statement that he is not a member of the traffic corps!

    Begs the question now How many members of the traffic corps do not have a driving licence??

    Just to clarify I posted the section to ask the self same question you did, why have such a section for AGS.


  • #318
    hondasam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,418 ✭✭✭✭hondasam


    foggy_lad wrote: »

    He must have closed his tired wee eyes for a minute or two, or maybe his mind was elsewhere like on his passenger? how could he NOT have seen them if he was paying attention!

    I nearly knocked someone down recently and I did not see him until the last moment, it was dark, he was wearing dark clothes and no light. I am not a nervous driver and drive a lot every day but it fcuking scared me and gave me a serious fright.
    I was alone in the car and was not distracted, it happens and the driver is not always in the wrong. It's easy to say it will never happen but the reality is a bit different.


  • #319
    Motorist
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 892 ✭✭✭Motorist


    ResearchWill wrote: »
    Just to clarify I posted the section to ask the self same question you did, why have such a section for AGS.

    It seems that it takes a fatality of serious accident for this disregard of the law and recklessness of the gardai to surface. In this case it took two fatalities for a separate investigator to check the compliance of the garda with the law, in a separate case heard two weeks ago it took a serious high speed collision on the m50 to uncover that a garda had consumed 10 pints while on duty. I suspect such disregard for the law is widespread amongst many garda members and we only hear about it when something goes seriously wrong,


  • #320
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,370 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    foggy_lad wrote: »
    I have driven all over the country on motorways and dual-carriageways as well as national primary and secondary routes at a time when the unofficial speed limit was 100mph. Most of the driving was at night and in the hundresd of thousands of miles I have never killed anyone and not even killed as much as a badger out of the hundreds of creatures I have encountered on the roads in the dead of night, if you are aware and awake you will see everything on the road even on the darkest of nights!
    I have killed a few cats and rabbits/hares that ran from hedgerows into the path of the car at dusk.

    How many lads did you see lying in the middle of the motorway at night in that time? Never took eye off the road even for a second in all your driving?

    I never even hit a cat yet. It means nothing. This fella probably never hit anyone before this either.


  • #321
    Merch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,322 ✭✭✭Merch


    robbie7730 wrote: »
    Its hardly an equal comparrison. Its safe to assume he did not see them. Having tax and good tyres wouldnt of improved his vision.

    He should have had some foresight then, he should NOT have been driving the car and it seems any car.
    I wouldn't go on the road not having a licence at all, expecting to be treated harshly for it but assuming also I didnt have the qualification or experience to drive.
    As he is expected to uphold the law, I think it is fair to say Gardai should be held to the highest standards,
    €900 euro doesn't seem a fair punishment for being so negligent, where his negligence and inexperience at least contributed to the deaths of two people.
    I'd expect an experienced person/driver (even a person with limited experience should be aware of these limitations) would consider to expect the unexpected when driving and that their car would be in a roadworthy condition, which he admits he knew it was not.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    Motorist wrote: »

    Also was his insurance not null and void if he had no licence?
    No.
    Insurance can't be voided by lack of a licence. Article 13 of directive 2009/103/EC.


  • #323
    mathepac
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,990 ✭✭✭mathepac


    TylerIE wrote: »
    It would have been quite easy for the forensic investigators to see if the tyres would have changed anything - based on the brake marks at the scene, the positioning of the deceased prior to impact and the relative line of sight, and the braking distance assuming perfect tyres / and the actual braking distance on the vehicle in the condition it was in.

    Per the solicitor in court there was an extensive forensic investigation, if there was any evidence that these contributed significantly to the incident there is no doubt in my mind that The Ombudsman would have pursued further charges.

    The Ombudsman's has made it clear they pursue Gardai so if they could have done so in this case Im sure they would.
    So the simplistic view is that because there was no prosecution, there was no offence committed.

    That is nonsense. How many times have we heard reported that "x number of previous offences were taken into account", or "the accused pleaded guilty to 3 sample charges out of 56" or "the accused pleaded guilty to a lesser charge in return for discount on his sentence", etc, etc? Many many times the State (DPP) decides not to pursue a prosecution in order to save time in court, save money or severe embarresment for the State or to help bolster the badly clear-up stats. (This is after the Garda Commissioner some years ago moved certain types of crime out of the so-called "headline zone" and then reported on this movement as an improvement in detection rates.)

    The fact that no prosecution happened is not the same as saying no offence was committed.


  • #324
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Ok I'll indulge you
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Doubt he will face any further charges as his passenger will back up his version of events.

    Well unless the forensic investigation agrees with that version lying is pointless.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    I have driven all over the country on motorways and dual-carriageways as well as national primary and secondary routes at a time when the unofficial speed limit was 100mph. Most of the driving was at night and in the hundresd of thousands of miles I have never killed anyone and not even killed as much as a badger out of the hundreds of creatures I have encountered on the roads in the dead of night, if you are aware and awake you will see everything on the road even on the darkest of nights!
    I have killed a few cats and rabbits/hares that ran from hedgerows into the path of the car at dusk.

    So you have killed things that appeared suddenly in poor lighting. Yet somehow you think this is different. At 120 kph your stopping distance is five times your reaction distance. I'm assuming you have no super powers and that you are human. As has been explained this particular incident happened on a bad bend in pitch dark. If he had a chance to take evasive action he would have. It's a natural reaction. Of course he and his passenger would likely be the deceased ones. if you were driving the car in those exact conditions you would be no different to him.

    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Lying about having a license will void any policy you take out.

    No it doesn't.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    He must have closed his tired wee eyes for a minute or two, or maybe his mind was elsewhere like on his passenger? how could he NOT have seen them if he was paying attention!

    Because dark clothing against a dark backround (the road) leaves little to no outline. If you ever drove country roads at night and encountered an unlit pedestrian you would know this.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    That was just a way of sweeping the whole unsavoury affair under the big carpet.

    Yes it worked well. Nobody knows.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    He was not driving in the course of his duties and his station have made a statement that he is not a member of the traffic corps!

    So he should be treated like anyone else.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    Begs the question now How many members of the traffic corps do not have a driving licence??

    Each Garda who has not completed a course must renew their driving priviledge each year and the application includes a copy of your licence so I doubt any drivers have no licence. Of course you can be a member of the traffic corps and not be a driver.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    He was knackered tired and possibly nodding off at the wheel but his passenger will back up his version of events even if they were both not paying attention to the road ahead or if she was somehow distracting him from his driving.

    They are some serious accusations with nothing to back them up.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    This guy is responsible for the deaths of two people who might otherwise have lived, He should be sacked and lose his pension entitlements at the very least, he is paid to uphold the paw and instead was quite happily breaking the law!

    They would have lived if they had not been rolling around on a motorway. There is nothing this person could have done to avoid them. That is a fact wether you like it or not.
    foggy_lad wrote: »
    It appears there is a lot of strange perks available to Guardai like not having to have a driving licence as well as being able to claim they are on official duty when involved in accidents in their own cars!

    This fella did neither.


  • #325
    Cee-Jay-Cee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,234 ✭✭✭✭Cee-Jay-Cee


    SunnyDub1 wrote: »
    he was driving with no driving license ?

    I would like to see anyone else just get a fine for having no licene... If it was anyone else they would get more then a fine

    No they wouldnt, its a very minor offence. He had no licence simply means that his licence had expired and he hadnt renewed it, it doesnt mean he wasnt qualified to drive. Insurance companies will cover you to drive so long as you held a licence for the type of vehicle you are driving within the previous 5 years. If he never held a licence then there would also have been a charge of having no insurance in there.

    2 idiots were fighting in the middle of a road, if the guard had a set of the most expensive performance tyres available for his car it would not have made one iota of a difference. He would still have hit and killed them because they were lying in the middle of the f**king road!!!!

    If you read through the courts pages in your local paper you'll actually see that he was heavily fined in comparison to what other people get fined for minor motoring offences which is all these actually are.


  • #326
    celticcrash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 851 ✭✭✭celticcrash


    Would you leave your daughter out the door to be picked up by a fella
    with no licence, no insurance, no tax and bald tyres.
    The man is a loose canon, a dangerous one at that.
    A fine of a weeks wages is a joke.


  • #327
    Padkir
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭Padkir


    professore wrote: »
    Did he not have lights on his car? Surely if it was dark he would have had full beams on.

    Sorry didn't read the rest of this thread, but need to point out something and might have a bit of a rant about it! :D

    He might not have had full beams on if there was oncoming traffic across the island, something which a lot of people driving on motorways seem to forget and don't care about blinding someone across the median!!!

    There should be nothing in the way and because a motorway is not likely to have any sharp corners or anything you should be happily able to tip along on dipped beams! Not his fault there were pedestrians on the motorway, much less that they were lying in the middle of the road!

    In saying that, prob should have got a higher fine and thrown out of the guards for not having a licence but as was said, ombudsman is still investigating!


  • #328
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    celticcrash wrote: »
    Would you leave your daughter out the door to be picked up by a fella
    with no licence, no insurance, no tax and bald tyres.
    The man is a loose canon, a dangerous one at that.
    A fine of a weeks wages is a joke.

    He was not charged with having no insurance.


  • #329
    thebullkf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    MagicSean wrote: »
    this statement is beyond stupid

    lemme guess... you a garda?


  • #330
    celticcrash
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 851 ✭✭✭celticcrash


    MagicSean wrote: »
    He was not charged with having no insurance.
    Ok let me put it this way Would you leave your daughter out the door to be picked up by a fella
    with no licence, iffy insurance, no tax and bald tyres.


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    thebullkf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,036 ✭✭✭thebullkf


    MagicSean wrote: »
    Ok I'll indulge you




    They would have lived if they had not been rolling around on a motorway. There is nothing this person could have done to avoid them. That is a fact wether you like it or not.



    really??......now who's making stupid statements:rolleyes:


    um ...eh... he could've avoided them if..............


    ... he OBEYED THE LAW !!! and not driven a car he legally had no right to drive.


Advertisement
Advertisement