Technicality of No insurance prosecutions on basis of false declaration

theAwakening

for the criminal law professionals...

a cert of insurance is produced within 10 days as lawfully demanded, covering you so drive relevant mpv at relevant date/time, in whatever circumstances..

gardai become aware you failed to notify said insurance company of your previous road traffic convictions when obtaining this policy. gardai enquire with insurance company, verifying that this omission indeed voids the policy.

the defendant technically would have produced, at the time, a valid cert as per sect 69.

would a prosecution under sect 56 be appropriate, on the evidence in court of an employee (of some capacity) from insurance company, stating that defendant was not insured on said vehicle on relevant date/time.

would it be further required, or appropriate in the circumstances, for the gardai to give evidence of these previous road traffic convictions during the case, before the judge has reached a verdict. it would appear a necessary proof, that the particulars of the convictions omitted in the application, would be required in the actual Garda evidence..?

alternatively, would a prosecution under sect 64 be appropriate, instead of a sect 56, which provides that the relevant proposal/contract for policy can be submitted in evidence without proof by the State?
( http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0064.html#sec64 )

Our man in Havana

I believe that a prosecution under S56 for no insurance would fail ultimately as the policy was in force at the material time and if there was an accident the insurance company would have to satisfy any 3rd party claim arising from any accident. They would of course void the policy and seek to recover the claim costs from the defendant.

A prosecution under S64 would be more likely to succeed as evidence such as the proposal form etc could be produced.

bath handle

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I believe that a prosecution under S56 for no insurance would fail ultimately as the policy was in force at the material time and if there was an accident the insurance company would have to satisfy any 3rd party claim arising from any accident. They would of course void the policy and seek to recover the claim costs from the defendant.

A prosecution under S64 would be more likely to succeed as evidence such as the proposal form etc could be produced.

I saw that defence being run in the district court. The judge convicted of the s56 offence. I don't know if it was ever appealed.

Our man in Havana

There were similar cases appealed to the circuits where the judgement was overturned.

dermot_sheehan

If its not one of the conditions listed in the road traffic (compulsory insurance) regulations 1962 as amended, the policy is valid as against third parties.

There is no offence therefore under s 56

MagicSean

There is a seperate offence of providing false information to the insurance company which you could be prosecuted under. I'm not sure of the exact legislation though.

amen

ianal but

the defendant technically would have produced, at the time, a valid cert as per sect 69

is this true ? When the insured took out the insurance they were asked to provide all prior convictions/accidents/claim and if he did not the policy would be void from inception. At the time he was stopped although he had a sheet of paper claiming he was covered he wasn't really covered as he had violated the terms of the contract and once the insurance company learned of this they would have flat cancelled his policy back to inception and returned any payment.

Our man in Havana

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

There is a seperate offence of providing false information to the insurance company which you could be prosecuted under. I'm not sure of the exact legislation though.

S64 RTA 1961. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0064.html#sec64

Our man in Havana

amen wrote: »

ianal but

is this true ? When the insured took out the insurance they were asked to provide all prior convictions/accidents/claim and if he did not the policy would be void from inception. At the time he was stopped although he had a sheet of paper claiming he was covered he wasn't really covered as he had violated the terms of the contract and once the insurance company learned of this they would have flat cancelled his policy back to inception and returned any payment.

The insurance company who issued the piece of paper would be on the hook for any 3rd party claim so an offence under S56 has not been committed.

amen

Why would they be on the hook? Is this not material misrepresentation ? If the Ins Co had known about the convictions they would never have issued the policy in the first place. The insured lied and committed fraud.

Victor

amen wrote: »

Why would they be on the hook? Is this not material misrepresentation ? If the Ins Co had known about the convictions they would never have issued the policy in the first place. The insured lied and committed fraud.

Agreed.

While the normal rules of insurance say that the policy is void, statute law trumps the rules of insurance.

dermot_sheehan

because of s. 67 of the road traffic act the policy still covers for claims by third parties.

The Road Traffic (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations list what conditions precedent are allowable in an "approved policy" issued under the Road traffic act.