Garda with no licience,tax, and bald tyres kills two and gets a fine!

HigginsJ

Terrontress wrote: »

a Garda is never off-duty, is he?

There was a Garda who unfortunately crashed and died in the past month or so. He was travelling home from work at the time, so you'd presume not on duty, but the Garda Ombudsman are investigating it anyway as they are never off duty.

So maybe no serving Garda needs any license to drive any vehicle.

They should just make it a requirement of becoming a guard. You can't become a guard if you can't speak Irish but they'll let you join with no driving license. Madness.

Cant be the case otherwise why was he prosecuted for not having a licence

_feedback_

darokane wrote: »

Well done for not mentioning the one thing that might have changed the outcome

ROADWORTHY TYRES

The stopping distance in the dry on good tyres at 120kph is about 100 metres. That is the length of a football field.

Any driver, regardless of their occupation, would struggle to notice, react and stop/avoid a completely unexpected obstruction which absolutely and totally should not have been there.

It's just lucky no innocent party wasn't killed in this incident...

Kosseegan

Funkstard wrote: »

Hang on, he knocked the two people down but they were on the ground having a scuffle in the middle of the motorway at night (as you do) and the car ran over them. If I remember correctly the garda didn't even know what he'd hit as it was so dark - that stretch of the motorway has no lights. He is being fined for driving without a licence or insurance and isn't culpable for anything else that happened.

He was not fined for driving without insurance.

hondasam

darokane wrote: »

Well done for not mentioning the one thing that might have changed the outcome

ROADWORTHY TYRES

The tyres might have made a difference but probably not to the outcome considering the men were in the middle of an unlit road.

Kosseegan

SunnyDub1 wrote: »

he was driving with no driving license ?

I would like to see anyone else just get a fine for having no licene... If it was anyone else they would get more then a fine

There are people in court every day of the week getting a fine for not having a licence. Sometimes not even a fine. The fines are often lower than he got. people sometimes forget to renew a licence. It is not a hanging offence not to have a licence.

Kosseegan

Funkstard wrote: »

If you wouldn't mind reading either my post or the article properly you'll see that he has been prosecuted for driving with bald tyres and without insurance or a licence, but none of these (as per an investigation stated in the article) led to the deaths of the two men. Them having a fight in the middle of the motorway, in the dark, is what led to their death.

There is no mention of insurance in the article.

hondasam

Terrontress wrote: »

a Garda is never off-duty, is he?

There was a Garda who unfortunately crashed and died in the past month or so. He was travelling home from work at the time, so you'd presume not on duty, but the Garda Ombudsman are investigating it anyway as they are never off duty.

So maybe no serving Garda needs any license to drive any vehicle.

They should just make it a requirement of becoming a guard. You can't become a guard if you can't speak Irish but they'll let you join with no driving license. Madness.

The Ombudsman investigates any accident involving a member whether on or off duty. Some guards are off duty the minute their shift finishes. It's a job same as every job, they clock off and forget about it.

Kosseegan

OldGoat wrote: »

The court appear to have been lienent. They overlooked his not being insured.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Licensed-Drivers/Penalty-points/Types-of-offences/
No insurance: 5 penalty points and a fine of up to €2,500 and/or a possible term of imprisonment

He does not seem to have been charged with no insurance.

HigginsJ

Kosseegan wrote: »

There are people in court every day of the week getting a fine for not having a licence. Sometimes not even a fine. The fines are often lower than he got. people sometimes forget to renew a licence. It is not a hanging offence not to have a licence.

Yea looking at the couple of examples of cases that the guys put up the fines for no tax/insurance/licence are laughable

mathepac

hondasam wrote: »

... my point was if he had d/lic tax and no bald tyres it would still be the same outcome.

How do you know that? What information do you have that the bald tyres did not mean the difference between two people living or dying? Are you a motor engineer or crash investigator? Did you examine the scene or the car? For someone who has apparently no more knowledge that the rest of us, your posts seem to imply differently.

hondasam

mathepac wrote: »

How do you know that? What information do you have that the bald tyres did not mean the difference between two people living or dying? Are you a motor engineer or crash investigator? Did you examine the scene or the car? For someone who has apparently no more knowledge that the rest of us, your posts seem to imply differently.

He was where he was on the night of the accident, how is that going to change? this is my point, if he had everything in order he was still going to be in that place at that time and the accident was going to happen.
I dunno why you are trying to imply anything else.

HigginsJ

Look whether or not better tyres would have made any difference is nothing but speculation. They may have made a difference, they may not. No-one can no for sure.


There seems to be nothing said that the tyres that were on the car contributed in any way to the accident and henceforth the Garda is not criminally culpable in any way.

I think the tyres, tax, licence are side stories used to highlight what is a simple case of wrong place wrong time for a group of people.

marco_polo

mathepac wrote: »

hondasam wrote: »

... my point was if he had d/lic tax and no bald tyres it would still be the same outcome.

How do you know that? What information do you have that the bald tyres did not mean the difference between two people living or dying? Are you a motor engineer or crash investigator? Did you examine the scene or the car? For someone who has apparently no more knowledge that the rest of us, your posts seem to imply differently.

You can be charged with dangerous driving causing death if the condition of the vehicle is a major factor in a fatal accident. As he wasn't charged with such an offense, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the condition of the tyres was not a factor.

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/death-crash-driver-avoids-jail-sentence-2613090.html

kkdela6

When they say he had no license, do they mean he doesn't currently hold a valid driving license or that he just didn't have his license on him at the time (e.g left it at home or something)?

lividduck

marco_polo wrote: »

You can be charged with dangerous driving causing death if the condition of the vehicle is a major factor in a fatal accident. As he wasn't charged with such an offense, it

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/death-crash-driver-avoids-jail-sentence-2613090.html

is not unreasonable to conclude that the condition of the tyres was not a factor or to conclude that being a copper means you get away lighter than anyone else!

mathepac

marco_polo wrote: »

... . As he wasn't charged with such an offense, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the condition of the tyres was not a factor...

Incorrect. The only conclusion we can reach is that the DPP decided on a set of charges to proceed with, leaving out the killing of two people; what we don't know now is why. Maybe we'll find out, but I suspect we won't.

laoch na mona

he is guilty of manslaughter

TylerIE

mathepac wrote: »

Incorrect. The only conclusion we can reach is that the DPP decided on a set of charges to proceed with, leaving out the killing of two people; what we don't know now is why. Maybe we'll find out, but I suspect we won't.

It would have been quite easy for the forensic investigators to see if the tyres would have changed anything - based on the brake marks at the scene, the positioning of the deceased prior to impact and the relative line of sight, and the braking distance assuming perfect tyres / and the actual braking distance on the vehicle in the condition it was in.

Per the solicitor in court there was an extensive forensic investigation, if there was any evidence that these contributed significantly to the incident there is no doubt in my mind that The Ombudsman would have pursued further charges.

The Ombudsman's has made it clear they pursue Gardai so if they could have done so in this case Im sure they would.

_feedback_

Lads, are you reading the thread with a blindfold on or what...

He has been fined (on upper end as fines go) for the licence and tyres etc.

The Ombudsman will investigate the incident.

The report does suggest that he had no fault in the accident, but it is basically not up to that court to actually say it.

Terrontress

laoch na mona wrote: »

he is guilty of manslaughter

No, he's not. Manslaughter is a legal definition. He was not charged or tried.

HeidiHeidi

laoch na mona wrote: »

he is guilty of manslaughter

:eek:

hondasam

laoch na mona wrote: »

he is guilty of manslaughter

Explain why you think this.

laoch na mona

Terrontress wrote: »

No, he's not. Manslaughter is a legal definition. He was not charged or tried.

yes he is he accidentally killed people

withless

2 people get out of a car to have a fight on a motorway and get hit by an officer of the law with no drivers license in a car that is not roadworthy who is then fined 900 euro by a judge.

Typical.

hondasam

laoch na mona wrote: »

yes he is he accidentally killed people

It was an accident, this is not what manslaughter is.

baldbear

I wonder why it was said in court he was a member of the henry st traffic corp when he wasn't. Why did he lie about that, surely he knew the truth would come out.

MagicSean

laoch na mona wrote: »

yes he is he accidentally killed people

That's not what manslaughter is.

I like the way people are saying he should have been treated harsher because he was a Garda. If he was treated as a Garda he likely would be able to avail of the legal exemption provided for Gardaí from the Road Traffic Acts and would have gotten off on everything.

hondasam

MagicSean wrote: »

That's not what manslaughter is.

I like the way people are saying he should have been treated harsher because he was a Garda. If he was treated as a Garda he likely would be able to avail of the legal exemption provided for Gardaí from the Road Traffic Acts and would have gotten off on everything.

Is that technically correct, he was off duty so regular joe public then.

lividduck

MagicSean wrote: »

That's not what manslaughter is.

I like the way people are saying he should have been treated harsher because he was a Garda. If he was treated as a Garda he likely would be able to avail of the legal exemption provided for Gardaí from the Road Traffic Acts and would have gotten off on everything.

That exemption only applies to a Garda acting in executing his duty, this guy was off duty so he couldn't claim any exemption.

MagicSean

lividduck wrote: »

That exemption only applies to a Garda acting in executing his duty, this guy was off duty so he couldn't claim any exemption.

That's my point. If you want him to be treated like a Garda for the purpose of punishment this would also allow him to avail of the exemption as a Garda.

JonathanAnon

I just heard that the guard's solicitor said he "had been on late duty for a number of days prior to this incident, and that he intended going to a dealer when he realised the condition of his car"

Was he so tired (having worked late duty) that he forgot that he didnt have a license??? Intended going to a dealer, for a car he didnt have a license for? .. was he gonna get somebody else to drive his car to the dealer? Strange statements from the defence, the aim of which I presume was to highlight "mitigating circumstances"

ResearchWill

laoch na mona wrote: »

yes he is he accidentally killed people

LRC report defined manslaughter as follows

4.04 The following is an outline of the current categories of manslaughter in Ireland.
(i)
Voluntary Manslaughter
(a) Where all the elements of murder are established by the prosecution but the jury is satisfied that the accused was acting under provocation when he/she killed the deceased;5
(b) Where the prosecution establishes all the elements for murder but death is inflicted by excessive force in self-defence - see The People (AG) v Dwyer6 where it was held that if the defendant honestly believed that the force used was necessary, then he could not be guilty of murder; and also The People (DPP) v Nally7 where the defendant was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for using excessive force in defence of his property against an intruder.8
(c) Undersection6oftheCriminalLaw(Insanity)Act2006,ifan accused successfully pleads diminished responsibility in answer to a charge of murder or infanticide, a conviction for manslaughter will be recorded with the sentence, at the courts discretion, being any term of imprisonment up to life.
Involuntary manslaughter:
(a) Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act ie the act must be a criminal offence, carrying with it the risk of bodily harm to another – a tort will not suffice (dangerousness is judged objectively);
(b) Manslaughter by gross negligence involving a high risk that substantial personal injury will follow the accused’s negligent act or omission.


http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rMurderandInvoluntaryMS.pdf

lividduck

MagicSean wrote: »

That's my point. If you want him to be treated like a Garda for the purpose of punishment this would also allow him to avail of the exemption as a Garda.

Why?

mikom

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I just heard that the guard's solicitor said he "had been on late duty for a number of days prior to this incident, and that he intended going to a dealer when he realised the condition of his car"

Drugs as well!
Jaysus...... this lad must be the bad lieutenant.

thebullkf

HigginsJ wrote: »

He has not been found guilty (so far) of anything other than minor offenses that you or I would get the same punishment that he received if it were our 1st time offending.

You want to take away his life/career/future because of an accident in which he was not at fault. If it were Cronyism im sure the Gardai would have overlooked the fact that his tax was out of date and that he did not have licence.

Having baldy tyres,no licence , no tax.... you say he's not at fault

he broke the law he (allegedly) upholds. Can you say he didn't...????

Terrontress

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I just heard that the guard's solicitor said he "had been on late duty for a number of days prior to this incident, and that he intended going to a dealer when he realised the condition of his car"

Was he so tired (having worked late duty) that he forgot that he didnt have a license??? Intended going to a dealer, for a car he didnt have a license for? .. was he gonna get somebody else to drive his car to the dealer? Strange statements from the defence, the aim of which I presume was to highlight "mitigating circumstances"

I'd have thought pleading ignorance as to the state of the car would be better than admitting full knowledge of the safety issues and acknowledging not having rectified them.

And if the deceased pair could not have been avoided, what is the relevance of his tiredness?

Itsdacraic

I'd be more concerned about the fact two other people who were with the two people who were fighting drove off and left their friends to die at the scene because they did not anyone to see what they had in the car.

ResearchWill

thebullkf wrote: »

Having baldy tyres,no licence , no tax.... you say he's not at fault

he broke the law he (allegedly) upholds. Can you say he didn't...????

Yes he broke the law, he was brought before a court to answer for breaking the law. He pleaded guilty and was punished as any citizen of the country would be in the same circumstances. Now if anyone is saying that in a republic it is ok to punish people harder because of the job they do is that not as bad as saying people should be treated lighter because of the job they do.

KarlDrake

HigginsJ wrote: »

KarlDrake wrote: »

Is €200 the standard fine for no tax or is it a Garda thing?
Is €200 the standard fine for no license or is it a Garda thing?

Thirdly, is it just the Gardaí's word we have for two guys lying on the road?[/QUOTE]


Well the fact that he drove over them pretty much backs that up no?

U thinking he pulled them out of the drunktank, cuffed them, lay them down on the road and ran over them, ala the cartoon scene with the girl tied to the railway tracks??

Pretty much. But with that piano music playing as well. I was unaware of the other details mentioned elsewhere, e.g. the other occupants of the cars that had these two poor eejits in it etc. Otherwise, who's to say they were having a chat and the driver broadsided them 'cos he was drunk or whatever. This appears not to have been the case, so although it's apparently under investigation, I'm satisfied that there's no hanky panky going here apart from the low nature of the fines given. If that was standard, why would anybody bother taxing their car, no? But thanks for addressing it all the same.

thebullkf

elviscostello wrote: »

I by no means think that anyone should drive a non roadworthy car, particularly without your licence in order, but for the love of god.

Take a mans life and career from him because he was unfortunate enough to come across two dopes rolling around a fúckin motorway?

no, take it away cos he drove illegally, and killed two people.

the arguement that"someone else would've done it, if not him" is bolloxology.

Applying that logic to theft=Sure if i don't steal that telly/wallet/<insert other> someone else will...right?

Fact is he drove on tyres he'd not allow anyone else drive on (legally) , he drove without a licence, something else he wouldn't (legally) let someone away with.

I fail to see the logic of the strong support for the garda tbh...

hondasam

JonathanAnon wrote: »

I just heard that the guard's solicitor said he "had been on late duty for a number of days prior to this incident, and that he intended going to a dealer when he realised the condition of his car"

Was he so tired (having worked late duty) that he forgot that he didnt have a license??? Intended going to a dealer, for a car he didnt have a license for? .. was he gonna get somebody else to drive his car to the dealer? Strange statements from the defence, the aim of which I presume was to highlight "mitigating circumstances"

Johnny, he know's he was wrong we know he was wrong but it happened. I think we have all concentrated on him and completely ignored the ftwo men who died.
They should not have been in the middle of the road that night but neither did they deserve to die.
There is a lot of people at fault here, the guard should uphold the law he enforces.

pjmn

Couldn't give a toss what his occupation is - but for killing two people, having no licence, no tax and two bald tyres, E900 doesn't seem a fit punishment for the crime...

JonathanAnon

hondasam wrote: »

Johnny, he know's he was wrong we know he was wrong but it happened. I think we have all concentrated on him and completely ignored the ftwo men who died.

Hey Sam... I was really just confused as to what the solicitor meant, seems like a very silly statement to come out with...

finty

thebullkf wrote: »

Having baldy tyres,no licence , no tax.... you say he's not at fault

he broke the law he (allegedly) upholds. Can you say he didn't...????

He is at fault for breaking road traffic laws and was convicted as such.


He isnt at fault for the deaths of two morons getting themselves killed by lying on a motorway in the dead of night

_feedback_

thebullkf wrote: »

no, take it away cos he drove illegally, and killed two people.

the arguement that"someone else would've done it, if not him" is bolloxology.

Applying that logic to theft=Sure if i don't steal that telly/wallet/<insert other> someone else will...right?

Fact is he drove on tyres he'd not allow anyone else drive on (legally) , he drove without a licence, something else he wouldn't (legally) let someone away with.

I fail to see the logic of the strong support for the garda tbh...

I'm not in any way questioning that he shouldn't have been driving the car.

But, he broke the law and drove the car. He was fined for that.

He hit two dopes rolling around on a bloody motorway. It is just madness to say it is his fault, when the limited information we have says the opposite.

K-9

laoch na mona wrote: »

he is guilty of manslaughter

Doubt it:

In R v Adomako the House of Lords affirmed R v Bateman, and set out the five elements required for negligence:
A duty of care owed by the defendant to the victim.
A breach of that duty.
A risk that the defendant's conduct could cause death.[23]
Evidence that the breach of duty caused the victim's death.
The defendant fell so far below the standards of the reasonable man in that situation that he should be labelled grossly negligent and deserving of criminal punishment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#English_law_3

Very debatable, never mind the 2 men fighting in the middle of a motorway!

ResearchWill

pjmn wrote: »

Couldn't give a toss what his occupation is - but for killing two people, having no licence, no tax and two bald tyres, E900 doesn't seem a fit punishment for the crime...

Ok what do you think is a fit punishment for

1. No license
2. No tax
3. 2 bald tyres
4. Killing 2 people in a car accident where there is no proof of negligence in relation to that incident.

pjmn

ResearchWill wrote: »

Ok what do you think is a fit punishment for

1. No license
2. No tax
3. 2 bald tyres
4. Killing 2 people in a car accident where there is no proof of negligence in relation to that incident.

10 years off the road!

marco_polo

lividduck wrote: »

marco_polo wrote: »

You can be charged with dangerous driving causing death if the condition of the vehicle is a major factor in a fatal accident. As he wasn't charged with such an offense, it

http://www.wexfordpeople.ie/news/death-crash-driver-avoids-jail-sentence-2613090.html

is not unreasonable to conclude that the condition of the tyres was not a factor or to conclude that being a copper means you get away lighter than anyone else!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0314/keysk.html

lividduck

ResearchWill wrote: »

Yes he broke the law, he was brought before a court to answer for breaking the law. He pleaded guilty and was punished as any citizen of the country would be in the same circumstances. Now if anyone is saying that in a republic it is ok to punish people harder because of the job they do is that not as bad as saying people should be treated lighter because of the job they do.

The gardai persistantly demand that those who attack , assault them should be treated harsher than if they attacked/assaulted an ordinary citizen. If the Gardai believe that they are entitled to special status within society then surely society has the right to expect that when Gardai wilfully break the law they should also be held to higher standard.