Effing Bandon Gardaí

Merrion

Maybe you could use the law of relativity to argue that, relative to you, the Gardai were in fact speeding away at approximately 43mph?

Boggle

"I swear your honour, I wasn't actually moving at all!! The world and everything else was in fact what was moving .... HONEST!!!"

....maybe not....

Merrion

"At this point the defense would like to call professor of physics, Dr. Stephen Hawking"...

Nuttzz

http://www.unison.ie/corkman/stories.php3?ca=34&si=1180089&issue_id=10858

THOUSANDS of speeding charges countrywide could be thrown out of court after decisions by two Cork judges.

On March 3 this year, Judge Con O’Leary dismissed a prosecution against a Dublin man charged with driving at 80 miles an hour in a 60-mile zone at Mallow Road, Cork, on June 5, 2003, where the speed had been measured by a ‘radar gun’, an apparatus that doesn’t produce any permanent record or simultaneous print-out of the speed.

And at Mitchelstown District Court last week, the legality of the ‘radar gun’ was again challenged by a Dublin based solicitor, who was allegedly clocked travelling at 73mph in a 50mph zone.

Representing himself, Barry McCarthy of 8 Eaglewood, Rochestown Avenue, Dun Laoghaire said he was stopped by Garda Martin Healy about two miles beyond the Glocca Maura Inn.

“He issued me with a fixed notice but I was never given a copy of the reading from the electronic apparatus,” Mr McCarthy told Judge Michael Pattwell.

Questioned by Inspector Senan Ryan as to whether he had sought to see the speed reading, Mr McCarthy replied that he was issued with a ticket but had not asked the garda for anything else. “He has to produce a record and he didn’t. It’s my contention that I must be furnished with a copy of that reading,” he added.

Acknowledging that this defence has already been used in other Cork courts, Inspector Ryan said he understood what the defendant was saying and the challenges were such that the issue had been taken up by their law advisors..

Stating that he would have to consider the facts put to the court, Judge Pattwell adjourned ruling on the case until July 2.

In a statement issued to The Corkman this week by Judge O’Leary, in which he sets out his reasons for dismissing the speeding charge on March 3, the judge explained that a ‘radar gun’ uses laser technology rather than radar to show – on a screen – numbers purporting to be the speed of an approaching or receding vehicle.

But, he added: “no ordinary guard can explain in court the physics which cause the numbers to appear nor why they should be relied on as accurate” – a difficulty for the Prosecution that, until last June, was very significantly reduced by Section 105 of the 1961 Road Traffic Act.

“This meant that a sufficiently expert witness might be able to challenge the efficacy or accuracy of the apparatus (radar gun) but, until someone could show otherwise, the evidence of the guard regarding the reading (if believed) would suffice for a conviction,” explained Judge O’Leary.

However, things ceased to be so easy for the prosecution when Section 25(2) of the Road Traffic Act 2002 – which repealed Section 105 of the 1961 Act – came into effect on June 1, 2003.

The effect of the new amendment is that, for a successful prosecution, a speed-measuring apparatus now has to issue documentary evidence of the offending speed and that a copy of this document has to be ‘furnished to the accused person before the commencement of the trial of the offence’.

This is where the problems start because, as was pointed out by the prosecution during the Blarney District Court case, the Garda-held ‘radar gun’ is incapable of producing a permanent record of the speed of a vehicle.

Section 21 of the 2002 Road Traffic Act goes on to state that ‘the uncorroborated evidence of one witness stating his opinion as to... speed shall not be accepted as proof of that speed’.

Concluding his statement containing his reasons for dismissing the case, Judge O’Leary said: “I believe that this means that the presumptions of efficacy and accuracy of the apparatuses, which include car speedometers, is now effective only where the apparatus produces a ‘record’, as required by the Act, of the reading, which is then served on the defendant in accordance with the terms of the section.

“Accordingly, all speeding prosecutions, where neither expert evidence is available nor ‘record’ produced and served, must fail.”

Inspector Peter Callanan, Traffic Inspector with the Traffic Unit at Anglesea Street Station, says “well in excess of 1,000 speeding charges” detected with the use of the ‘radar gun’ have been made in his jurisdiction since June 1, 2003.

And the latest figures from the Garda Traffic Bureau show that 246,196 speeding notices were issued by Gardai in 2002 – in 76% of these cases fines were paid but at the end of 2002 court proceedings were pending in respect of 8,517 cases.

Most of these are likely to be as a result of radar gun detections.

Commenting on further implications of the amended law and of Judge O’Leary’s ruling in the matter, another Garda source said: “As I see it, there are two implications. One – that the hand-held ‘radar gun’ will become redundant as a method of detecting speed.

“This also means that penalty points will not be an issue for the offender if a prosecution isn’t brought.

“The second implication is that the Department of Transport may issue amending legislation ... then we’re back on track.”

Inspector Callanan says Gardai must now seek advice from the DPP or the Attorney General on the matter.


This speeding detection crux comes on top of a similar problem with drink-driving charges, where, last month, Judge Patwell dismissed a raft of prosecutions because he wasn’t satisfied with ‘intoxilyser’ evidence garnered at the roadside by Gardai.