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

hondasam · 19-04-2012 9:38pm

JonathanAnon wrote: »

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

I agree with you, he was just trying to make it sound better I guess. we will probably never know if he had a d/lic, how long the tax was out or how bald the tyres were. He worked in Limerick and lived in cork, I dunno how far he was travelling every day. There is no excuse really I suppose.

JonathanAnon · 19-04-2012 9:41pm

Terrontress wrote: »

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.

Yeah that's what I mean about it being odd... It's kind of self incriminating.. And when they say "that he intended going to a dealer when he realised the condition of his car" it kind of implies that he didnt necessarily see anything wrong with driving without a license.

_feedback_ · 19-04-2012 9:41pm

marco_polo wrote: »

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

I don't get what point you are trying to make with that link?

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 9:41pm

pjmn wrote: »

10 years off the road!

Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.

team2 · 19-04-2012 9:43pm

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...

What crime did the guard commit, fact he didn't commit a crime, he committed some driving offences, and 900 is a fairly steep fine for those offences

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 9:43pm

lividduck wrote: »

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.

That is equally as wrong an assault is an assault end of in my opinion. But in any case that does not treat the criminal differently because of his status it treats the criminal differently because the crime may be considered different.

It's a bit like a judge I heard about before used to give harsher sentences to people who robbed cheap old cars, his logic is a guy with a banger would have less money and more than likely only third party insurance so the loss to him would be way more than the new car owner with full insurance, again the difference is not based on the criminal but the effect of the crime.

marco_polo · 19-04-2012 9:48pm

elviscostello wrote: »

marco_polo wrote: »

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

I don't get what point you are trying to make with that link?

Clearly that being a guard doesn't get you any special treatment in a court of Law.

pjmn · 19-04-2012 9:50pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.

a) Where did I ever say I never broke a law? You might point out that to me....

b) have I crossed a road close to a crossing - haven't a clue what that means...

c) Yes - I carry my licence at all times...

d) Checked tyre threads last weekend (they are fine), back ones will need replacing before front ones, but it is a rear wheel drive car...

e) Brake fluid and lights were all checked at last months service... (and were fine)...

f) have never driven anyone else's car - I'm not insured to...

Hope that clarifies your queries, albeit I am still not sure what it has to do with someone who has killed two people, had no driving licence, no car tax and was driving on two bald tyres... :rolleyes:

HigginsJ · 19-04-2012 9:51pm

withless wrote: »

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.

typical, that people see a garda is in an incident and automatically assume that its a big conspiracy and he wont face the consequences

_feedback_ · 19-04-2012 9:54pm

The more I read this thread, the more I feel sorry for this guy. He will be forever named as the guy who "killed" two people, by a lot of people who can't see past the fact that he made a couple of bad decisions but committed no big crime ...

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 9:54pm

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.

depends on the job-if you are an upkeeper of the law, you should be treated harsher when you break it- there is a small minority in every sector who become arrogant/flippant about breaking the rules they enforce-"do as i say, not as i do" , he also received a sentence that is light- do you believe otherwise?

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 9:56pm

pjmn wrote: »

a) Where did I ever say I never broke a law? You might point out that to me....

b) have I crossed a road close to a crossing - haven't a clue what that means...

c) Yes - I carry my licence at all times...

d) Checked tyre threads last weekend (they are fine), back ones will need replacing before front ones, but it is a rear wheel drive car...

e) Brake fluid and lights were all checked at last months service... (and were fine)...

f) have never driven anyone else's car - I'm not insured to...

Hope that clarifies your queries, albeit I am still not sure what it has to do with someone has killed two people, had no driving licence, no car tax and was driving on two bald tyres... :rolleyes:

Because its an offense to cross the road in the vicinity of a designated crossing point, but not at the designated point, you would not think so in this country.

The reason I asked you the other questions is I personally think a 10 year driving ban for a first offense in this case would be too harsh, and that while you may be a perfect driver who has never done wrong and thankfully never been the cause of a serious crash, most people are fallible and punishment should reflect the crime, the charges and evidence before the court.

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 9:57pm

finty wrote: »

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

eh- i think you'll find he was...ffs HE killed them, sure blame is apportioned to them- but they paid for their folly- this garda has got off lightly.

HigginsJ · 19-04-2012 9:57pm

thebullkf wrote: »

depends on the job-if you are an upkeeper of the law, you should be treated harsher when you break it- there is a small minority in every sector who become arrogant/flippant about breaking the rules they enforce-"do as i say, not as i do" , he also received a sentence that is light- do you believe otherwise?

Going on the fine he got and the fine that was issued in the cases that were linked up on this thread he was fined at the higher end of the scale for the tyres, tax and licence.

Milk & Honey · 19-04-2012 9:58pm

leeroybrown wrote: »

This happened on a motorway not a tiny bohreen. Motorway designated roads are supposed to be designed to allow drivers achieve the designated speed limit day or night without the risks associated with blind junctions, roadside obstructions, pedestrians, cyclists, agricultural vehicles, etc.

Technically the ban is applied from when you next receive a license. At that point it's endorsed and you lose it for the period of the ban.

The ban happens 14 days after the district court order, unless appealed. The licence is supposed to be handed in.

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 9:59pm

thebullkf wrote: »

depends on the job-if you are an upkeeper of the law, you should be treated harsher when you break it- there is a small minority in every sector who become arrogant/flippant about breaking the rules they enforce-"do as i say, not as i do" , he also received a sentence that is light- do you believe otherwise?

The sentence must be looked at in relation to others charged with the same then no it's not light in my opinion it's at the higher end of what is usually given. Do I think it was right ya prob for the charges before the court. If he had pleaded guilty to dangerous driving death, if that charge was before the court, then a ban would have been given. But on what little I know I really don't think dangerous driving or even careless driving would have stood up.

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 10:01pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, (i have, but never killed anyone)

for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing.(yes-almost killed-once!)
If you drive do you carry your license at all times. (Yes)
If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working.(weekly check)
Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC. (always)

But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.

hows about yourself there?

HigginsJ · 19-04-2012 10:03pm

thebullkf wrote: »

eh- i think you'll find he was...ffs HE killed them, sure blame is apportioned to them- but they paid for their folly- this garda has got off lightly.

How did he get off lightly.

What would you do with the man. He killed 2 people, unitentionally and under circumstances outside of his control and if he is a decent human being (i imagine gardai can be) then i am sure an extremely difficult situation for him to cope with.

He cant be charged/prosecuted for that.

He is still open to internal disciplinary action, but to hang a man for a terrible accident is unfair.

withless · 19-04-2012 10:04pm

HigginsJ wrote: »

typical, that people see a garda is in an incident and automatically assume that its a big conspiracy and he wont face the consequences

You 'automatically assumed' that is what I meant.

I 'automatically assume' you left school when you were 8 by the standard of English in your post.

It was more a general comment on the quality of the populace of our great nation.

pjmn · 19-04-2012 10:04pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Because its an offense to cross the road in the vicinity of a designated crossing point, but not at the designated point, you would not think so in this country.

The reason I asked you the other questions is I personally think a 10 year driving ban for a first offense in this case would be too harsh, and that while you may be a perfect driver who has never done wrong and thankfully never been the cause of a serious crash, most people are fallible and punishment should reflect the crime, the charges and evidence before the court.

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion (as I am to mine) - but my view is that anyone who is over the age of 18 (i.e. should know right from wrong) who takes a car that is not in a roadworthy condition, does not have a driving licence to drive same and the said car is not taxed then I think 10 years off the road is an appropriate punishment, and in turn it might just stop the next guy doing the same...

... finally, I think you should drop the 'perfect driver' comments, you don't know me, and it makes your comments look a little childish/foolish.

lividduck · 19-04-2012 10:05pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.

You seem to be missing the point, it was admitted in court that he knew the tyres (described as being extremley bare) needed replacing, so he was aware as he headed off that he was driving (without a licience) an unroadworthy vehicle, now that is a highly negligent and dangerous thing to do imo.

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 10:06pm

thebullkf wrote: »

hows about yourself there?

I have not called for a 10 year ban for what I believe most people including myself have done, there is a difference between making a mistake many of us make and doing something really stupid.

Also from the tone of my posting it is in my opinion obvious that I am not a perfect driver nor for that matter perfect in many areas of life, hence maybe because of that imperfection would rather lower fines for the types of offense the Garda has been found guilty of. But as a lot of people on here are perfect and never drive without a licence, tax and with bald tyres they have every right to call for stiffer sentences.

lividduck · 19-04-2012 10:11pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have not called for a 10 year ban for what I believe most people including myself have done, there is a difference between making a mistake many of us make and doing something really stupid.

Also from the tone of my posting it is in my opinion obvious that I am not a perfect driver nor for that matter perfect in many areas of life, hence maybe because of that imperfection would rather lower fines for the types of offense the Garda has been found guilty of. But as a lot of people on here are perfect and never drive without a licence, tax and with bald tyres they have every right to call for stiffer sentences.

I have never ever driven without a licience, I have never and would never drive a car knowing that it had extremly bare tyres as that is a highly dangerous thing to do, I have driven without tax for a week past the renewal date.
I have a great deal of trouble with your assertion that most people have driven without tax, a driving licience and with bald tyres ,all offences at the same time.

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 10:12pm

pjmn wrote: »

Obviously you are entitled to your opinion (as I am to mine) - but my view is that anyone who is over the age of 18 (i.e. should know right from wrong) who takes a car that is not in a roadworthy condition, does not have a driving licence to drive same and the said car is not taxed then I think 10 years off the road is an appropriate punishment, and in turn it might just stop the next guy doing the same...

... finally, I think you should drop the 'perfect driver' comments, you don't know me, and it makes your comments look a little childish/foolish.

You are asking for a person to be held up to a very high standard of driving, in my opinion a person would have to perfect to have never done any or all of the 3 things he was charged with in a driving life. You have stated how you drive in reply to my questions and in my opinion you are in a very small group of people, I believe most people could not tell you how to check tyres, not to mind brake fluid. My point is that to hold people to such a high standard and give 10 year ban then what you are accusing the person of must be far below the required standard, I don't believe it is you do.

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 10:12pm

HigginsJ wrote: »

Going on the fine he got and the fine that was issued in the cases that were linked up on this thread he was fined at the higher end of the scale for the tyres, tax and licence.

fine if he was stopped @ a checkpoint and caught(though prob would be waved through as a courtesy) but his actions resulted in the death of 2 people,(coupled with their own actions)

action vs consequence

he didn't do everything a fair and reasonably practical person would do, he of all people should be checking vehicle roadworthiness on a daily basis, its a requirement for all gardai who drive fleet cars(if he was indeed driving them) to do basic safety checks incl tyres,not least having a licence!!

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 10:14pm

lividduck wrote: »

I have never ever driven without a licience, I have never and would never drive a car knowing that it had extremly bare tyres as that is a highly dangerous thing to do, I have driven without tax for a week past the renewal date.
I have a great deal of trouble with your assertion that most people have driven without tax, a driving licience and with bald tyres ,all offences at the same time.

Sorry could you quote where I have said "most people have driven without tax, a driving licience and with bald tyres ,all offences at the same time."

team2 · 19-04-2012 10:17pm

thebullkf wrote: »

finty wrote: »

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

eh- i think you'll find he was...ffs HE killed them, sure blame is apportioned to them- but they paid for their folly- this garda has got off lightly.

I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........

pjmn · 19-04-2012 10:17pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are asking for a person to be held up to a very high standard of driving, in my opinion a person would have to perfect to have never done any or all of the 3 things he was charged with in a driving life. You have stated how you drive in reply to my questions and in my opinion you are in a very small group of people, I believe most people could not tell you how to check tyres, not to mind brake fluid. My point is that to hold people to such a high standard and give 10 year ban then what you are accusing the person of must be far below the required standard, I don't believe it is you do.

Brake fluid isn't the issue here...

He knew the tyres were bald - he knew he didn't have a licence, he knew the car wasn't taxed (the lesser of the crimes I'll admit) - therefore I believe he got off very lightly...

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 10:17pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

I have not called for a 10 year ban for what I believe most people including myself have done, there is a difference between making a mistake many of us make and doing something really stupid.

Also from the tone of my posting it is in my opinion obvious that I am not a perfect driver nor for that matter perfect in many areas of life, hence maybe because of that imperfection would rather lower fines for the types of offense the Garda has been found guilty of. But as a lot of people on here are perfect and never drive without a licence, tax and with bald tyres they have every right to call for stiffer sentences.

so you've driven witthouta license,on bald tyres to boot... you should be banned, simple really-maybe if the threat was there-peole wouldn't do it...

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 10:20pm

thebullkf wrote: »

fine if he was stopped @ a checkpoint and caught(though prob would be waved through as a courtesy) but his actions resulted in the death of 2 people,(coupled with their own actions)

action vs consequence

he didn't do everything a fair and reasonably practical person would do, he of all people should be checking vehicle roadworthiness on a daily basis, its a requirement for all gardai who drive fleet cars(if he was indeed driving them) to do basic safety checks incl tyres,not least having a licence!!

Action v consequence, yes I totally agree with you, but he was not charged with dangerous driving causing death, if anyone has evidence that he should have been, then of course he should get a10 year ban which is the usuall punishment for such a charge unless there are circumstances that would allow for jail or indeed a lessor sentence. The point here is there is no evidence that what he did wrong caused the death of two people. yes he had no licence, ok bad carries fine usually €50 to €200, he had no tax again usual fine €100 to €250 depending has back tax been paid and bald tyres usual €100 to €500.

If you have evidence that the bald tyres caused the accident then of course it should be dangerous driving causing death but if that evidence is not there he can not be found guilty of that charge.

lividduck · 19-04-2012 10:20pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Sorry could you quote where I have said "most people have driven without tax, a driving licience and with bald tyres ,all offences at the same time."

He was convicted of having no licience, no tax, and two bald tyres, you referred to him as having do nothing that "I believe most people including myself have done"
Glad to be of assistance:)

lividduck · 19-04-2012 10:22pm

team2 wrote: »

I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........

Approximatley one weeks wages for a Garda with his service, hardly "pretty steep"

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 10:22pm

team2 wrote: »

I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........

i think you'll find they were killed, "by the guy with no road tax£"....or licence...or...roadworthy vehicle...

Lemme ask you this : if a guy crashed into your parents and killed them as they crossed a road and he had no licence........or tax......or proper tyres.....and receive same sentence- would you still hold the same view?

i doubt it.

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 10:23pm

lividduck wrote: »

He was convicted of having no licience, no tax, and two bald tyres, you referred to him as having do nothing that "I believe most people including myself have done"
Glad to be of assistance:)

And in your quote ,"all offences at the same time" I don't think I said all at the same time, my point was as is clear many of us or guilty of doing those offenses.

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 10:25pm

thebullkf wrote: »

i think you'll find they were killed, "by the guy with no road tax£"....or licence...or...roadworthy vehicle...

Lemme ask you this : if a guy crashed into your parents and killed them as they crossed a road and he had no licence........or tax......or proper tyres.....and receive same sentence- would you still hold the same view?

i doubt it.

Well if my parents at 80 happened to be brawling in the middle of a motorway at night with no lighting I would think they happened to be mental.

If on the other hand it happened at a road crossing and the cause of the accident was directly linked to the 3 factors then I would be really pissed off with a €900 fine.

hondasam · 19-04-2012 10:26pm

thebullkf wrote: »

i think you'll find they were killed, "by the guy with no road tax£"....or licence...or...roadworthy vehicle...

Lemme ask you this : if a guy crashed into your parents and killed them as they crossed a road and he had no licence........or tax......or proper tyres.....and receive same sentence- would you still hold the same view?

i doubt it.

I guess you have made a good point here, if it was one of our families that was killed we would be outraged and rightly so. You have to look at it from every angle.

x4winnie · 19-04-2012 10:26pm

I had no idea that so many people were so lax about breaking the law & the rules of the road, some people here seem to think its only a minor offence to have no driving licence, no big deal to have bald tyres and no road tax is hardly worth a mention.

If we are to accept that this driver was in no way responsible for the accident, why did his solicitor/lawyer say that he worked late shifts in the previous days, what is the relevance.

I think its unbelievable that a police man would have no regard for the rules of the road (until he has had an accident) Yes I do expect more from our police force.

Regarding his motor insurance not being mentioned when he was fined for no driving licence etc. Is it possible that the garda force has a group motor insurance which covers them to drive any vehicle?.... Just a thought.

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 10:28pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Action v consequence, yes I totally agree with you, but he was not charged with dangerous driving causing death, if anyone has evidence that he should have been, then of course he should get a10 year ban which is the usuall punishment for such a charge unless there are circumstances that would allow for jail or indeed a lessor sentence. The point here is there is no evidence that what he did wrong caused the death of two people. yes he had no licence, ok bad carries fine usually €50 to €200, he had no tax again usual fine €100 to €250 depending has back tax been paid and bald tyres usual €100 to €500.

If you have evidence that the bald tyres caused the accident then of course it should be dangerous driving causing death but if that evidence is not there he can not be found guilty of that charge.

he should be charged with driving causing death- i know accidens happen, but you have got to give yourself every possible chance of doing things that don't cause death, like having a valid permit to rive, or valid tax, or valid tyres, he had neither, so in mind he's culpable-and the fne is scant solace or deterrent.

neither he nor his car should've been on the road that night(nor the 2 scrappers). they were-he should be dealt with severely.

hondasam · 19-04-2012 10:29pm

x4winnie wrote: »

Regarding his motor insurance not being mentioned when he was fined for no driving licence etc. Is it possible that the garda force has a group motor insurance which covers them to drive any vehicle?.... Just a thought.

No they have to insure their own cars.

lividduck · 19-04-2012 10:29pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

And in your quote ,"all offences at the same time" I don't think I said all at the same time, my point was as is clear many of us or guilty of doing those offenses.

A wortd of advice, when you find yourself at the bottom of a hole , stop digging!

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 10:29pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Well if my parents at 80 happened to be brawling in the middle of a motorway at night with no lighting I would think they happened to be mental.

If on the other hand it happened at a road crossing and the cause of the accident was directly linked to the 3 factors then I would be really pissed off with a €900 fine.

point is if your parents were on a road illegally (jaywalkin is illegal, yet we all do it, have done it) and it happened..... nature of the illegality is moot point tbf.

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 10:32pm

thebullkf wrote: »

he should be charged with driving causing death- i know accidens happen, but you have got to give yourself every possible chance of doing things that don't cause death, like having a valid permit to rive, or valid tax, or valid tyres, he had neither, so in mind he's culpable-and the fne is scant solace or deterrent.

neither he nor his car should've been on the road that night(nor the 2 scrappers). they were-he should be dealt with severely.

I may agree with you on the dangerous driving causing death charge, there is a part of me that would agree that all RTA resulting in death should lead to a charge and let the Jury decided on the evidence before it. My own belief in this case is a jury would more than likely find not guilty.

But my point is he was not charged with that and the charges before the court are all the court can consider. If you think the 3 charges should result in 10 year ban then from what I have seen in the DC and CC lots of people would be banned.

team2 · 19-04-2012 10:34pm

thebullkf wrote: »

team2 wrote: »

I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........

i think you'll find they were killed, "by the guy with no road tax£"....or licence...or...roadworthy vehicle...

Lemme ask you this : if a guy crashed into your parents and killed them as they crossed a road and he had no licence........or tax......or proper tyres.....and receive same sentence- would you still hold the same view?

i doubt it.

your missing the point totally the chap drove his car and committed a few minor road traffic offences hevrecieved a steep fine for those offences. He did not expect to find two idiots on a motorway rolling around on the ground he will live with that for the rest of his life. None of the offences he committed contributed to the deaths if those lads proof is he was not charged.... You appear to have the view it was all his fault hi can't understand if he wad at fault why wad he not charged with dd causing death can you explain this?

team2 · 19-04-2012 10:40pm

lividduck wrote: »

team2 wrote: »

I think you will find he didn't get off lightly, sure he may have committed some road traffic offences. By any standard the fine he received is pretty steep for the offences he pleaded guilty to, as you pointed out HE KILLED Them. He will live with that for the rest of his life. Question why was he not charged with killing them, eh cause it wasn't his fault when was the last time you came across two idiots rolling around on a motor way of all places in the dark, eh never and would never expect to remember its an offence to walk on the motor way... they may have paid the price but come on what would you expect if that was their carry on. Any one could have killed them it was an accident caused by their negligence and foolhardy behaviour a not by the guy with no road tax........

Approximatley one weeks wages for a Garda with his service, hardly "pretty steep"

its actually a steep fine the norm is a conviction and fine on the most serious offence and the rest are taken into consideration

x4winnie · 19-04-2012 10:44pm

hondasam wrote: »

No they have to insure their own cars.

I was wondering if the insurance policy that covers driving garda vehicles, may cover them in the event they 'overlooked the requirement' to have motor insurance on their own personal vehicle. The reason I mention it is that if he had no driving licence, how could he have motor insurance, yet he was not charged with having no insurance.

Milk & Honey · 19-04-2012 10:44pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

I may agree with you on the dangerous driving causing death charge, there is a part of me that would agree that all RTA resulting in death should lead to a charge and let the Jury decided on the evidence before it. My own belief in this case is a jury would more than likely find not guilty.

Jury trials are time consuming and expensive. It would be an absolute waste for the DPP to bring a prosecution in circumstances where there is little likelihood of a conviction. There is a backlog of cases as it is. Why make it worse?

Merch · 19-04-2012 10:47pm

ResearchWill wrote: »

Good to know, I assume you have never broken a law, for example have you crossed a road close to a crossing. If you drive do you carry your license at all times. If you drive when did you last check tyre thread dept, brake fluid level and all lights to make sure they are working. Do you check the tax details on every car you drive if owned by someone else same with NTC.

But itsgood to know there is one perfect driver in the country.

team2 wrote: »

your missing the point totally the chap drove his car and committed a few minor road traffic offences hevrecieved a steep fine for those offences. He did not expect to find two idiots on a motorway rolling around on the ground he will live with that for the rest of his life. None of the offences he committed contributed to the deaths if those lads proof is he was not charged.... You appear to have the view it was all his fault hi can't understand if he wad at fault why wad he not charged with dd causing death can you explain this?

Is that what you think? minor! I think they are pretty serious offences, whats the norm, no road tax for more than 3 months, can expect car to be taken off you. If the people that died are stupid, that doesnt mean they deserved to die, because of someone elses carelessness/thoughtlessness.
By your rationale (and many others) lets say a deaf person crosses the road, you blast away with the horn, they dont hear you, so you drive over them, but you weren't expecting a deaf person, you just assumed they could hear.
If I was driving along, I'd rather drive the car off the road than hit someone, even if they are somewhere they shouldn't be. Rolling around in a lane on the motorway is idiotic, but the driver shouldn't just assume they can do the limit (or more) as its a motorway, he should not have been driving full stop!

hondasam · 19-04-2012 10:51pm

x4winnie wrote: »

I was wondering if the insurance policy that covers driving garda vehicles, may cover them in the event they 'overlooked the requirement' to have motor insurance on their own personal vehicle. The reason I mention it is that if he had no driving licence, how could he have motor insurance, yet he was not charged with having no insurance.

The insurance was mentioned earlier in the thread, I know it's a long thread so you probably have not seen it.The car is insured regardless of the d/lic.
I don't think it would be very fair if the state insured their private cars.

ResearchWill · 19-04-2012 10:53pm

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Jury trials are time consuming and expensive. It would be an absolute waste for the DPP to bring a prosecution in circumstances where there is little likelihood of a conviction. There is a backlog of cases as it is. Why make it worse?

I did qualify what I said by saying there is a part of me that agrees, and it was in reply to another poster.

thebullkf · 19-04-2012 10:55pm

Merch wrote: »

Is that what you think? minor! I think they are pretty serious offences, whats the norm, no road tax for more than 3 months, can expect car to be taken off you. If the people that died are stupid, that doesnt mean they deserved to die, because of someone elses carelessness/thoughtlessness.
By your rationale (and many others) lets say a deaf person crosses the road, you blast away with the horn, they dont hear you, so you drive over them, but you weren't expecting a deaf person, you just assumed they could hear.
If I was driving along, I'd rather drive the car off the road than hit someone, even if they are somewhere they shouldn't be. Rolling around in a lane on the motorway is idiotic, but the driver shouldn't just assume they can do the limit (or more) as its a motorway, he should not have been driving full stop!

isnt it one month.....how long was his tax out....????

the garda who was a passenger is also guilty of negligence.

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

Comments