wicklaman83 wrote: » The OP said the guard had no proof. I think he is right. Just because the guards say they seen something doesnt mean it did. If we go by your basis there was a mis-carraige of justice in waterford. Did the 3/4 guards not get convicted for assault yet they gave testimony that they were not involved. They were convicted because there was proof.
tayto lover wrote: » If he had no equipment then he can't prove it. If they have equipment they always show you you're speed.
MagicSean wrote: » I don't think you know what the word proof means. If you are walking down the road with a Garda and a guy runs up to you and shoots you dead then throws the gun in a river would there be no proof of the act even though the Garda witnessed it? Witness testimony is evidence, no matter wether it is from a Garda or not, and a case can be proved by testimony alone.
Conn2012 wrote: » Aaa come on now.. ( The body is the proof the crime happened, not the gun btw ) We are on about speeding, he says I was speeding he has to prove I was over 120... In his opinion I was.. Surely he needs to tell me my exact speed? And if he could he'd done me for speeding right? What we doing with all the guns / cameras.. Jus stick gaurd on side road and let them hav crack guessing who's over?
MagicSean wrote: » If he was travelling at 120 kmph and op was gaining ground on him then that is proof op was speeding. It's mathematical proof. You can obvioulsy try and challenge the accuracy of his speedometer or honesty of his testimony. I'm not sure where you get this idea that he needs some kind of electronic proof?
tayto lover wrote: » If he had no equipment then he can't prove it.
Conn2012 wrote: » My idea I more like.. I give u example.. The guards opinion a driver was drunk- he still needs proof - a roadside breath test / a validated machine at station or a doc to take blood / urine.. Seal it and send it to be tested in a lab.. The even at the lab two analysts need to sign it... In speeding the gun/cam needs to be tested and calibrated to b proof.. Not jus his own cars speedometer?? And if he's watchin me in rear view is he not more of a hazard?
Conn2012 wrote: » And if he's watchin me in rear view is he not more of a hazard?
MagicSean wrote: » Mpre of a hazard? You're just grasping at straws now.
Conn2012 wrote: » Between 120 -160.. When I seem d cop car..
MagicSean wrote: » Section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Acts 2010-2011 does not require a sample to prove drink driving. Mpre of a hazard? You're just grasping at straws now.
alproctor wrote: » And you call him a cowboy cop???? Absolutely no idea of what speed you were doing... You SHOULD be done for dangerous driving if it's possible you were doing 160kph and not know about it.
tayto lover wrote: » Very poor analogy there. Not like you. If that Garda took me to court I would have them produce their own car to have their speedometer examined to see the accuracy of it's calibration. A Garda, no more than anyone else, can guess your speed. The element of proof still exists in our courts. How can they tell the exact speed he was doing if they have no speed reading device? They can't say "Judge he was doing the same speed as us and we were doing 140 k.p.h.". and he could say "well my speedometer was reading just 120 k.p.h." There would be a serious doubt in that case and I couldn't see a Judge convicting him tbh.
The Mustard wrote: » You may be right, but there's an interesting point there. If the Garda driver was (first) watching the road ahead of him, doesn't it cast doubt on whether he could accurately (secondly) keep an eye on the speedomoter and (thirdly) accurately monitor the OP's distance behind him? Maybe the Garda could give convincing evidence of carefully watching all three, but it would be interesting to see how he would manage under cross-examination.
Conn2012 wrote: » When a Garda decides to prosecute someone for drink driving they must provide the court with certain proofs in order to obtain a conviction. The proofs required under Section 4(2), (3) and (4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 (i.e. blood, urine and breath test) are slightly different to that of Section 4(1) (driving while under the influence of an intoxicant). This charge is normally preferred where an arrested person has failed to provide a blood, urine or breath specimen with the result that it is not possible to bring a case under either Section 4(2), (3) or (4). For an offence under 4(1) the following elements or proofs must be given to the court; That you drove or attempted to drive That you must have driven or attempted to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle That your driving or attempt to drive took place in a public place That you were under the influence of an intoxicant to such a degree that you could not properly control the vehicle
MagicSean wrote: » All three are things every driver is supposed to be able to when driving at all times.
MagicSean wrote: » The analogy is sound. Your claim is that witness testimony is not sufficient proof. My claim is that witness testimony can be sufficient. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position though. All three are things every driver is supposed to be able to when driving at all times. All of which can be provided by witness testimony without any other supporting evidence.
MagicSean wrote: » The analogy is sound. Your claim is that witness testimony is not sufficient proof. My claim is that witness testimony can be sufficient. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position though. I have read of cases where the Gardai were chasing people and where they gave evidence of the speed the car was travelling and the manner it was being driven in. In this case nobody was being chased and the Gardai had to slow down to measure the driver's speed on occasions. A good solicitor would make a laugh of this case in fairness if it ever went to court at all, which I doubt it will. The Gardai would also be in trouble with their own bosses if they mentioned in court that they sped up and slowed down to catch someone speeding.
Conn2012 wrote: » Should the person refuse or be unable to provide a sample..
tayto lover wrote: » I have read of cases where the Gardai were chasing people and where they gave evidence of the speed the car was travelling and the manner it was being driven in. In this case nobody was being chased and the Gardai had to slow down to measure the driver's speed on occasions. A good solicitor would make a laugh of this case in fairness if it ever went to court at all, which I doubt it will. The Gardai would also be in trouble with their own bosses if they mentioned in court that they sped up and slowed down to catch someone speeding.
MagicSean wrote: » The op isn't being done for speeding though so an exact speed isn't required, just evidence of him exceeding a particular speed.
MagicSean wrote: » That is only one case where such a charge can be brought. The op isn't being done for speeding though so an exact speed isn't required, just evidence of him exceeding a particular speed.
TheNog wrote: » Estimated speed of a driver is done a lot of the time. Personally I have given evidence against a dozen or so drivers on dangerous driving which included speed which I was able to determine from the speedometer of the patrol car. Where you agree with it or not doesn't matter. It has and continues to be done
tayto lover wrote: » "Driving without due care" ?? How can he prove it? If the OP sticks to his story that he was exactly on the limit and that there was no question of an accident occurring while being observed by the Garda through his rear-view mirror I really cannot see a conviction in this case, if it ever gets that far. Would I be right in thinking that "driving without due care" is only mainly used when an accident has occurred and when Dangerous or Careless Driving would not stand or would not be proven?
Zambia wrote: » At all times you should know the speed you are doing otherwise your not really in control.
tayto lover wrote: » Right. So if his solicitor asks "what speed was my client doing exactly Garda"?
tayto lover wrote: » "Would I be right in thinking that "driving without due care" is only mainly used when an accident has occurred and when Dangerous or Careless Driving would not stand or would not be proven?
MagicSean wrote: » In excess of 120kph
tayto lover wrote: » "121, 122, 124 kph or have you an exact number Garda?" Can't really see that sticking tbh.
TheNog wrote: » I'm on a mobile so can't split your post above for my answer. Observing a persons driving through a rearview mirror is definitely more difficult but it can be done. Careless driving and dangerous driving would mainly used for traffic accidents. Remember dangerous driving includes speed so if the Garda gives evidence that the OP was driving in excess of the speed limit and he gives an estimation say between 140-160kph, the OP could be convicted and disqualified. If anything happens I would say it will a speeding fine or summons for dangerous driving if Garda believes OP was doing those speeds.
TheNog wrote: » Does not have to be an exact speed.
