An offence that was never committed

cormie

Imagine a guy, let's call him Rudiger, went away for a month and left his car on the side of the road, not on yellow lines, not in a paying parking space and not less than 5 metres from a junction or turn. To save a bit of money on his insurance, he took the disc out and sent it off to the insurance company to resume it upon his return. The insurance is suspended and 4 days later police man issues a ticket for the offence:

Non display of insurance disc (10 days after date of authentication of the certificate) Contrary to section 11 (as amended by section 6 of the road traffic act 1968) of the road traffic act, 1961 involving the driving or use of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place.

Now if the offence given reads "involving the driving or use of" when it wasn't being driven and wasn't in use, as the owner was not in the country, is the offence void?

Apparantly it's still an offence to have the car in a public place without an insurance disc displayed, wheteher the vehicle is in use or not. However, I can not find proof of this and I have heard another case where somebody wanted a car removed that was an eye sore, it had no insurance or tax discs and the police in that case said they couldn't remove it as it was committing no offences.

If it is an offence, does the above quoted offence fall into this or is it void as Rudigers car was not in use or being driven at the time?

dermot_sheehan

The Offence is having a vehicle in a public place without an insurance disk.

The exact piece of law is violating regulations made by the minister under s. 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA24Y1961S11.html

The exact regulations requiring the display of an insurance disc and perscribing its form are here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI355Y1984.html and amended here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI227Y1986.html


It's declared here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI443Y1986.html that a violation of them is a section 103 offence.

Committing a violation of section 103 is punished according to section 102. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA24Y1961S102.html

Section 102(a) prescribes the punishment for a first offence. According to section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 the punishment for a section 102(a) offence if it goes to court is currently set at a maximum €800 fine http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA12Y2002S23.html.

According to section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA12Y2002S11.html
section 103 offences may now be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice. The minister has by order set the fixed penalty at €80 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI492Y2002.html.

There is currently no penalty points for this offence http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/gen142002a.html

hiscan

why did he suspend his insurance for the sake of four days?
sorry read that wrong do you get a refund if you suspend your insurance like that?

Our man in Havana

He suspended it for a month.

AFAIK it's an offence to leave a vehicle on a public road uninsured.

cormie

gabhain7 wrote:

The Offence is having a vehicle in a public place without an insurance disk.

The exact piece of law is violating regulations made by the minister under s. 11 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA24Y1961S11.html

The exact regulations requiring the display of an insurance disc and perscribing its form are here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI355Y1984.html and amended here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI227Y1986.html


It's declared here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI443Y1986.html that a violation of them is a section 103 offence.

Committing a violation of section 103 is punished according to section 102. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA24Y1961S102.html

Section 102(a) prescribes the punishment for a first offence. According to section 23 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 the punishment for a section 102(a) offence if it goes to court is currently set at a maximum €800 fine http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA12Y2002S23.html.

According to section 11 of the Road Traffic Act 2002 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA12Y2002S11.html
section 103 offences may now be dealt with by a fixed penalty notice. The minister has by order set the fixed penalty at €80 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI492Y2002.html.

There is currently no penalty points for this offence http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/gen142002a.html

Jebus, that's absolutely great digging you've done there. Much appreciated! There's a lot of reading there but from the first 3 links regarding the actual offence, I can not see anything where it says about the non use of, it all just relates to a vehicle moving or in use. If Rudiger was away, his vehicle was not moving or in use.

Regarding the other links of committing and offence in this area, and the €80 fine, I think there might be something amiss there too as aparantly, a letter similar to what may be sent to Rudiger has a €60 fine up to 28 days and €90 after the initial 28 days for another 28 days.

dermot_sheehan

Article 5 of the 1984 Regulations (second link in original posting)

5. (1) When a vehicle is used in a public place the insurance disc for the vehicle shall be carried on the vehicle at all times after the expiry of 10 days from the date of authentication of the certificate of insurance.

Turns on definition of "used" i suppose. According the the definitions of terms in the Road Traffic Act 1961 under which these regulations were made http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA24Y1961S3.html

"use" in relation to a vehicle, includes park, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly

Also regarding the fine amount, I was erroneous in I looked up the regulations for speeding which are here http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI492Y2002.html which state €80

The fine set for no insurance disc is set by there regulations http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZSI396Y1997.html which as you can see by Article 6(a) the fine is set at £50 (which would probably be converted to about €60 by one of the euro changeover acts.

As you can see for some reason in this state road traffic legislation has to be unescessarily complicated.

cormie

So there is actually nothing that states that if the car is not in use it's an offence? That's what I gathered from reading the links too. Interesting. It's quite confusing alright.

So with that in mind, is the offence void if Rudiger was away while the offence was issued?

cormie

I just saw your edit now about the park. Where did you get that from? Does it mean to be parked with somebody in it I wonder, or to be in the act of being parked, or to be repaired or in use while being parked?

cormie

this is getting into the minor details now, but the dictionary meaning of park is the action of parking. Also the whole being parked scenario is not outlined well at all.

dermot_sheehan

Got the definition from here: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA24Y1961S3.html


Interpretation section of Road Traffic Act 1961
It also defines park:

"park" in relation to a vehicle, means keep or leave stationary, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly;

cormie

Jaysus, talk about small print, hehe, having to refer to use and then to park.

Thanks a lot for pointing all that out anyway:)

cormie

Jaysus, talk about small print, hehe, having to refer to use and then to park.

Thanks a lot for pointing all that out anyway:)

Victor

I wonder if the 2006 act changes any of the amounts.

dermot_sheehan

The 2006 act wasn't on irishstatutebook, i found a copy here:
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/bills/2006/2806/b28d06d.pdf

the penalty for going to court for a s. 102(a) offence has been raised to €1,000.

The problem is there's about a year time lag between regulations and statutes being enacted and showing up on irishstatutebook.ie, so a recent order could for example have made it a fixed penalty offence or change the amount for it.

cormie

Just another question on this. Is this a conviction or does it need to go to court to be?

Darragh29

cormie wrote:

Imagine a guy, let's call him Rudiger, went away for a month and left his car on the side of the road, not on yellow lines, not in a paying parking space and not less than 5 metres from a junction or turn. To save a bit of money on his insurance, he took the disc out and sent it off to the insurance company to resume it upon his return. The insurance is suspended and 4 days later police man issues a ticket for the offence:



Now if the offence given reads "involving the driving or use of" when it wasn't being driven and wasn't in use, as the owner was not in the country, is the offence void?

Apparantly it's still an offence to have the car in a public place without an insurance disc displayed, wheteher the vehicle is in use or not. However, I can not find proof of this and I have heard another case where somebody wanted a car removed that was an eye sore, it had no insurance or tax discs and the police in that case said they couldn't remove it as it was committing no offences.

If it is an offence, does the above quoted offence fall into this or is it void as Rudigers car was not in use or being driven at the time?

A point worth noting is that you have an interesting grounds of appeal if you can make no headway with the "used", "parked", "in use" argument.

The definition of a car in all of the legislation cited above is a "mechanically propelled vehicle". Reading this definition inter alia, would lead me to conclude that this definition can only actually be valid if the vehicle is in use. Where a vehicle is not in use, it is not being "mechanically propelled" and cannot be a "mechanically propelled vehicle" at the time of an alleged offence. Nowhere in any act does the definition of what we call a car, become stretched to include a vehicle which is capable of being mechanically propelled but is actually not being propelled at the time of an offence. If a vehicle is parked at the side of the road, and is clearly not in use, you could argue that at that time it was not a "mechanically propelled vehicle", so therefore falls outside the scope of the legislation in question. Interestingly you could take the battery out of your car or any other vital component that is necessary for its operation and your vehicle no longer falls under the definition of a vehicle under the relevant road traffic legislation, as it is no longer a vehicle capable of being mechanically propelled or a "mechanically propelled vehicle".

In law, it would appear that there is no difference between a rubbish skip full of metal and a stationary car situated side by side on a street.

Victor

No, the acts define "parked" as part of "use".

"Mechanically propelled vehicle" means capable of being mechanically propelled, not that it is currently being mechanically propelled.

Darragh29

Victor wrote:

No, the acts define "parked" as part of "use".

"Mechanically propelled vehicle" means capable of being mechanically propelled, not that it is currently being mechanically propelled.

I beg to differ, because the word "capable" is not used in any piece of road traffic legislation with regard to this particular situation, so this particular definition has no explicit meaning. The act may define "parked" as part of "use", but the wider question still remains: Does a piece of cold metal that is sitting on the kerb with nobody in it and not being propelled in any particular direction, fall within the remit of any piece of road traffic legislation that defines a car as a "mechanically propelled vehicle"??? I say no it doesn't.

Even if we were to accept that it does, it is open to anyone to remove a key component of the vehicle that means that it is no longer (A) a mechanically propelled vehicle, or (B) capable of being a mechanically propelled vehicle, so you can side step the legislation in this way also...

Our man in Havana

Say if the engine was removed and the shell was left at the side of the road?

Could be a very interesting court case.

cormie

Interesting alright. What if instead of the engine having to be removed, you removed the key instead?

dermot_sheehan

section 3 Road Traffic Act 1961:

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,

but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;

(2) Where a vehicle, which, apart from this subsection, would be a mechanically propelled vehicle, stands so substantially disabled (either through accident, breakdown or the removal of the engine or other such vital part) as to be no longer capable of being propelled mechanically, it shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as not being a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Victor

gabhain7 wrote:

section 3 Road Traffic Act 1961:

"mechanically propelled vehicle" means, subject to subsection (2) of this section, a vehicle intended or adapted for propulsion by mechanical means, including—

( a ) a bicycle or tricycle with an attachment for propelling it by mechanical power, whether or not the attachment is being used,

( b ) a vehicle the means of propulsion of which is electrical or partly electrical and partly mechanical,

but not including a tramcar or other vehicle running on permanent rails;

(2) Where a vehicle, which, apart from this subsection, would be a mechanically propelled vehicle, stands so substantially disabled (either through accident, breakdown or the removal of the engine or other such vital part) as to be no longer capable of being propelled mechanically, it shall be regarded for the purposes of this Act as not being a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Darragh29 wrote:

I beg to differ, because the word "capable" is not used in any piece of road traffic legislation with regard to this particular situation, so this particular definition has no explicit meaning. The act may define "parked" as part of "use", but the wider question still remains: Does a piece of cold metal that is sitting on the kerb with nobody in it and not being propelled in any particular direction, fall within the remit of any piece of road traffic legislation that defines a car as a "mechanically propelled vehicle"??? I say no it doesn't.

Kindly reconcile these two quotes.

Even if we were to accept that it does, it is open to anyone to remove a key component of the vehicle that means that it is no longer (A) a mechanically propelled vehicle, or (B) capable of being a mechanically propelled vehicle, so you can side step the legislation in this way also...

Is there any suggestion that this was the case?

Bond-007 wrote:

Say if the engine was removed and the shell was left at the side of the road?

I smell desperation. And the council towing contractor coming along to remove a derelict vehicle.

cormie wrote:

Interesting alright. What if instead of the engine having to be removed, you removed the key instead?

I smell either contempt of court, or a promotion.

carpy

Cormie, did Rudiger pay the fine or did he go to court?

cormie

I think he paid that one yeah :pac:

shoegirl

cormie wrote: »

Apparantly it's still an offence to have the car in a public place without an insurance disc displayed, wheteher the vehicle is in use or not. However, I can not find proof of this and I have heard another case where somebody wanted a car removed that was an eye sore, it had no insurance or tax discs and the police in that case said they couldn't remove it as it was committing no offences.

If it is an offence, does the above quoted offence fall into this or is it void as Rudigers car was not in use or being driven at the time?

Its an offence, the car would have to be "off the road" in order to be exempt for insurance, so you'd need evidence of same from a garage. Leaving it on a public road left your pal open to this. He'll know next time.

Carawaystick

from Gabhain's point then would the person prosecuting need to show the vehicle wasn't disabled by the removal of the engine?

Oh just saw the date...