Go Safe Photo of Driver

If everyone puts down the handbags, I think we have established:

1) If you could somehow prove that you were not driving at the time of the photo, you would not be convicted

2) The OP can't, and is screwed.

BMJD

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So, in the servicing case, how have you shown that you didn't take it for a spin to check the garage fixed some issue? You've given a plausible story, but you haven't proved it.

Well, when I get my car serviced I borrow a courtesy car so I have my insurance changed over to that car. I also get an invoice from the garage stating the time of pick-up and return of the car; the service invoice also has the time I'm booked in for, credit/debit card can show when it was paid for. Also, there is likely to be a trail of proof that I was not anywhere near the area the alleged offence took place - for example if I am in work there is absolute proof that I am there pretty much every minute. The garage I use is on the other side of the city so there is enough distance between us apart from drop off/pick up times.

Again, I'm not in the business of doing GoSafe's or anyone else's detective work, if they wanted to take it to court I'd be happy to let a judge decide (in the very specific and unlikely case above).

corktina

Gosafe don't prosecute, the Gardaí do

BMJD

I didn't say otherwise.

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

please see below as it explains why I am correct again for you.
Zubeneschamali I agree exactly with what you have said.

Your quote from Zubeneschamali bears no relation to what you were claiming as Cinio has already pointed out.

Jesus Christ (even though he's currently banned) lads, we've just been through this sh*t:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057247533
My bet: a fiver and my left nut says a driver that can prove he wasn't driving at the time can't be charged.
If your housemate burgles a house, can you get done for the burglary?
Anyways, if I am wrong, I can only say that so far I think Ireland is a pretty fcuked up country sometimes.
But then again, local authorities will try to make the new tenant of a business responsible if the previous one didn't pay all the rates.
Jungle law and banana republic, so it would make perfect sense to make someone who can prove he is innocent, guilty of something he didn't commit.

biko

Cleveland Hot Pocket banned.

Back to business please.

copey

Do they have prove who was driving. Innocent till proven guilty.

pa990

copey wrote: »

Do they have prove who was driving. Innocent till proven guilty.

No
The first onus is on the registered owner.

Innocent until proven guilty has some exceptions.
Parts of the Road Traffic Act 1961 - 2013 , specially.

copey wrote: »

Do they have prove who was driving. Innocent till proven guilty.

evidently not it seems. in the case of speeding, the registered keeper is guilty unless they can prove they are innocent by (i'm guessing reliably) showing they were elsewhere and could not have committed the offence.

at this point we're pretty much just arguing over what constitutes "proof" that you weren't driving st the time, but in reality, only a judge can decide that (and different judges may decide differently) so it's pretty much just conjecture on all parts now unless the OP fancies their chances in court and to report back.

it would actually be interesting what a judges reaction would be in this case. 3 honest people willing (presumably) to legitimately take the blame if someone can show who was actually to blame, but obviously nobody wanting to get points for something when there's a 66% chance they didn't do it. presumably the gardai can provide a photo of the face of the driver, but if they can't, i don't see how a judge can convict anyone.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

vibe666 wrote: »

presumably the gardai can provide a photo of the face of the driver, but if they can't, i don't see how a judge can convict anyone.

For goodness sake, you posted the law yourself. The judge will apply the law, that's his job. The owner gets the fine and points.

The only judge who could do anything else is a judge in the Supreme Court if you challenged the constitutionality of the law. Nobody will do that over a feckin speeding fine!

I think there is a good chance that the law is constitutional in any case. It is not unjust to say that as the owner, you are responsible for how the car is used. Don't want to collect speeding points? Don't lend your car to any speeders.

corktina

What happens if you nominate another driver and they prove they were elsewhere?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

For goodness sake, you posted the law yourself. The judge will apply the law, that's his job. The owner gets the fine and points.

you're talking about *your interpretation* of the law. unless you can show me precedent in case law that shows this is in fact the case, you are talking pure conjecture just like the rest of us.

I hate to break it to you, but a judge will be applying his interpretation of the law, not yours.

until and unless this goes in front of a judge, none of us have any idea what a specific judges interpretation of the law will be or specifically what to do in this case when presented with all the facts.

unless you have evidence to the contrary?

vibe666 wrote: »

you're talking about *your interpretation* of the law. unless you can show me precedent in case law that shows this is in fact the case, you are talking pure conjecture just like the rest of us.

Ah, I thought you were arguing that the clear meaning of the law is unjust, and that the courts might not enforce it.

But actually, you think the meaning of the law is unclear. Fair enough. You might want to consult a legal professional before betting on that, though, since it is as black-and-white clear as any law I've ever seen:

in a prosecution of that owner or another person for the alleged offence, which is a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that—

(i) where the registered owner is an individual, he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle

I don't see any ambiguity there.

it's not about ambiguity, it's about what constitutes sufficient contrary evidence indicating a persons innocence.

two months ago a judge dismissed a speeding case because even though there WAS evidence of an offence, there was no record that the the photographic evidence itself had been provided to the keeper of the vehicle prior to the court appearance.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/speeding-summons-cases-may-be-affected-by-high-court-ruling-1.1863154

by YOUR interpretation of the law, the defendant here would have been convicted without question, when in fact even though there was photographic evidence of the offence occurring, simply because it hadn't been presented to the accused before the trial, the case was dismissed and has now set a precedent that may result in a large number of other similar cases being dismissed on the same grounds.

This is also very relevant to the OP, since he has actually asked for photographic evidence to clarify who was driving at the time of the offence. as I already stated, unless this can be provided prior to a court appearance, I seriously doubt there could be a safe conviction handed down on the day.

vibe666 wrote: »

it's not about ambiguity, it's about what constitutes sufficient contrary evidence indicating a persons innocence.

Up to the judge on the day, but no different in that respect than any other evidence. It's always up to the judge on the day.

Sometimes the judge will take a liking to a defendant, especially a well dressed one with lawyers, and let them away with mad stuff, or maybe just tell them to donate to the poor-box. Other times they'll take a dislike to a particular Garda, and dismiss cases all over the place.

So it is always possible that a judge on the day might accept the sworn testimony of an upstanding citizen to the effect that they were elsewhere on the day in question. I wouldn't bet that way myself, though, since it's double points after a court appearance. And the OP can't even swear he wasn't the one driving...

vibe666 wrote: »

I seriously doubt there could be a safe conviction handed down on the day.

But the OP admits driving on that day! How can they prove it wasn't them exactly?

They can't even tell us it wasn't them, never mind a judge.

Henry Ford III

vibe666 wrote: »

it's not about ambiguity, it's about what constitutes sufficient contrary evidence indicating a persons innocence.

two months ago a judge dismissed a speeding case because even though there WAS evidence of an offence, there was no record that the the photographic evidence itself had been provided to the keeper of the vehicle prior to the court appearance.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/speeding-summons-cases-may-be-affected-by-high-court-ruling-1.1863154

.....

Indeed but that's a red herring in relation to what's being discussed.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the OP admits driving on that day! How can they prove it wasn't them exactly?

They can't even tell us it wasn't them, never mind a judge.

that is EXACTLY the point. right now, with no further evidence, nobody can say who was driving, or who wasn't and a judge can't just point the finger when he has testimony casting significant doubt over the guilt of the keeper of the vehicle that he was the one who committed the offence.

the judge will have testimony from three people who were driving on that day none of whom can say with any degree of certainty who was driving when the offence was recorded.

with the evidence provided (assuming no photo of the drivers face surfaces prior to the day), the judge has evidence that the offence was committed, but only a 33% probability that the keeper was the driver of the car at the time of the offence.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Indeed but that's a red herring in relation to what's being discussed.

not at all. several people seem to think that if a photo of your car speeding is captured that is the end of it and that you will be given points and a fine unless you can prove you weren't driving and nominate the person that was, when this is clearly not the case and and even a trivial technicality can get a speeding case dismissed despite there being clear evidence that the keeper committed that offence and they don't even bother to deny their guilt.

if a speeding case can be thrown out (and potentially many more as a result of that) by a judge because the gardai *might* not have included a photo of the offence to the person caught speeding prior to the court date and that the gardai simply couldn't prove that they did send an image even though they thought they had and usually would, it is very relevant to the thread since the accused in that case was able to shift the burden of proof back onto the gardai to the point where even though there was clear evidence of his guilt by any measurable standards the case was dismissed.

the above case p1sses all over any notions that the law in regards to speeding offences is cut and dry and that once they have a picture of your car speeding, that either a nominated driver or failing that yourself is definitely going to be convicted and get points.

if the OP walks into court with the other people who were driving and explains that none of them knows who was driving at the time of the alleged offence and that they have not been provided with the evidence required to ascertain the guilty party, the judge can't just pick one at random with a 66% probability that he would be convicting someone innocent of the offence.

at a time in ireland when significant numbers of speeding fines are being thrown out of court for trivial reasons and the entire speeding fine system in this country has been labelled as "bureaucracy gone mad" by a judge, it's really not much of a stretch that a speeding fine could be thrown out if there is no way to ascertain who was driving on the day in question.

Henry Ford III

vibe666 wrote: »

that is EXACTLY the point. right now, with no further evidence, nobody can say who was driving, or who wasn't and a judge can't just point the finger when he has testimony casting significant doubt over the guilt of the keeper of the vehicle that he was the one who committed the offence.

the judge will have testimony from three people who were driving on that day none of whom can say with any degree of certainty who was driving when the offence was recorded.

with the evidence provided (assuming no photo of the drivers face surfaces prior to the day), the judge has evidence that the offence was committed, but only a 33% probability that the keeper was the driver of the car at the time of the offence.

not at all. several people seem to think that if a photo of your car speeding is captured that is the end of it and that you will be given points and a fine unless you can prove you weren't driving and nominate the person that was, when this is clearly not the case and and even a trivial technicality can get a speeding case dismissed despite there being clear evidence that the keeper committed that offence and they don't even bother to deny their guilt.

if a speeding case can be thrown out (and potentially many more as a result of that) by a judge because the gardai *might* not have included a photo of the offence to the person caught speeding prior to the court date and that the gardai simply couldn't prove that they did send an image even though they thought they had and usually would, it is very relevant to the thread since the accused in that case was able to shift the burden of proof back onto the gardai to the point where even though there was clear evidence of his guilt by any measurable standards the case was dismissed.

the above case p1sses all over any notions that the law in regards to speeding offences is cut and dry and that once they have a picture of your car speeding, that either a nominated driver or failing that yourself is definitely going to be convicted and get points.

if the OP walks into court with the other people who were driving and explains that none of them knows who was driving at the time of the alleged offence and that they have not been provided with the evidence required to ascertain the guilty party, the judge can't just pick one at random with a 66% probability that he would be convicting someone innocent of the offence.

at a time in ireland when significant numbers of speeding fines are being thrown out of court for trivial reasons and the entire speeding fine system in this country has been labelled as "bureaucracy gone mad" by a judge, it's really not much of a stretch that a speeding fine could be thrown out if there is no way to ascertain who was driving on the day in question.

Sigh.

There's no benefit in people like us on the internet trying to second guess what a judge might or might not do. They can be quite unpredictable.

The evidential paper trail is one thing, and where that's been successfuly challenged it's all well and good.

The "3 possible drivers" case isn't necessarily affected. Whilst the chances of someone getting a fine and points are against the owner/keeper that's exactly what the legislation assumes. In other words - someone was speeding in your car. Produce the driver if it wasn't you, or else it's assumed it was you.

Whatever about the chances of a 33% incorrect conviction, if there's no doubt the offence took place the issuing of fine/points is 100% correct.

Just my understanding of it.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Sigh.

There's no benefit in people like us on the internet trying to second guess what a judge might or might not do. They can be quite unpredictable.

The evidential paper trail is one thing, and where that's been successfuly challenged it's all well and good.

The "3 possible drivers" case isn't necessarily affected. Whilst the chances of someone getting a fine and points are against the owner/keeper that's exactly what the legislation assumes. In other words - someone was speeding in your car. Produce the driver if it wasn't you, or else it's assumed it was you.

Whatever about the chances of a 33% incorrect conviction, if there's no doubt the offence took place the issuing of fine/points is 100% correct.

Just my understanding of it.

That.
People have vehemently and passionately (to the point of getting themselves banned) argued with absolute 100% certainty that they where right and the other side was wrong.
In the end no-one can be certain.

vibe666 wrote: »

that is EXACTLY the point. right now, with no further evidence, nobody can say who was driving, or who wasn't and a judge can't just point the finger when he has testimony casting significant doubt over the guilt of the keeper of the vehicle that he was the one who committed the offence.

Unless the OP can show he was not driving, neither the law nor the judge care who was actually driving. It doesn't matter. As owner, he gets the points and fine, because it is his vehicle.

The law pins the guilt on the owner, not the judge.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That.
People have vehemently and passionately (to the point of getting themselves banned) argued with absolute 100% certainty that they where right and the other side was wrong.
In the end no-one can be certain.

and I think we can probably let the thread rest at that until the OP tells us if they intend to go to court and then lets us know what happens.

if it was me personally, i'd definitely be going to court over it if nobody provides an image of the drivers face, but other people would evidently just prefer to grease up and bend over.

vibe666 wrote: »

if it was me personally, i'd definitely be going to court over it i

I'd consider a few bob on legal advice well spent first.

vibe666 wrote: »

and I think we can probably let the thread rest at that until the OP tells us if they intend to go to court and then lets us know what happens.

if it was me personally, i'd definitely be going to court over it if nobody provides an image of the drivers face, but other people would evidently just prefer to grease up and bend over.

That's the way the law works in Ireland.
If you are being done over as is usual and you think it is unfair, you can challenge the might of the state.
All you need is several solicitors and barristers as well as deep pockets to the tune of a few hundred thousand or more.
In Germany you can bring a Verfassungsklage (constitutional challenge) and it costs exactly zero.
So in Ireland you can say the state protects itself from plebs who dare to challenge the status quo by putting up a wall of completely unreasonable and probably illegal barricades in way of fees that will ruin anyone who dares to complain.
That is the difference between a banana republic and a proper country.
We the people my arse.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.