Undriveable car, case dismissed

mb1725

Apologies if this has been posted already but I did not see it here, weird case:
http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/undriveable-car-sees-case-dismissed-3141948.html

The law is a funny animal.

MugMugs

The laws an ass and so are drink driving laws. He got hammered, killed his car and because he had killed the car before being observed being intoxicated, he gets away with it? Pathetic!

Mar4ix

thats a joke. if ill crash in somebodies car, damage it completely, there will be two not drivable motors, which leads to non collision existence, as so much damaged cars cant participate on road traffic. lol .

Oral Surgeon

mb1725 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been posted already but I did not see it here, weird case:
http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/undriveable-car-sees-case-dismissed-3141948.html

The law is a funny animal.

Mad, how much does that barrister cost???

andyseadog

have i missed somthing or is the moral of the story -

if your going to get caught drink driving, write the car off to an undrivable extent and you will get away with it? if so, thats scary.

biko

Not a lawyer but wasn't the point that he could drive it to the scene?
Not being able to drive it away from the scene is irrelevant.

MugMugs

andyseadog wrote: »

have i missed somthing or is the moral of the story -

if your going to get caught drink driving, write the car off to an undrivable extent and you will get away with it? if so, thats scary.

The key here is that he wasn't seen driving the car whilst pissed therefore wasn't in drunken charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Berty

If a Garda is chasing you in your car then you:

Crash into a pole so badly your car is "undriveable" so you can then argue that no chase could ever have existed because the car is now in bits.

Judge: You ran a bus full of orphans and nuns off a ravine and they all died in a terrible ball of fire

Barrister: He then crashed his car into a pole and wrote it off

Judge: No problem so, case dismissed. Car couldn't have been moving anyway, must have been an act of god or something

pred racer

biko wrote: »

Not a lawyer but wasn't the point that he could drive it to the scene?
Not being able to drive it away from the scene is irrelevant.

I would have thought that too

Barr

WTF - that story makes no sense. The Judge is totaly clueless.

gerryo777

Was the judge on the beer too??

MugMugs

Beer Baron wrote: »

If a Garda is chasing you in your car then you:

Crash into a pole so badly your car is "undriveable" so you can then argue that no chase could ever have existed because the car is now in bits.

Judge: You ran a bus full of orphans and nuns off a ravine and they all died in a terrible ball of fire

Barrister: He then crashed his car into a pole and wrote it off

Judge: No problem so, case dismissed. Car couldn't have been moving anyway, must have been an act of god or something

Actually. Had the Gardai been chasing him and kept him in sight before being breath tested he would've been done for drink driving.

Barr

MugMugs wrote: »

The key here is that he wasn't seen driving the car whilst pissed therefore wasn't in drunken charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Would this not be evidence enough

"Garda said there was one person in the driving seat of the car, the engine was running, the lights were on and the keys were in the ignition. She spoke to <snip>, who was in the driving seat, and he was awake and responsive"

Berty

MugMugs wrote: »

Actually. Had the Gardai been chasing him and kept him in sight before being breath tested he would've been done for drink driving.

Surely if you got this judge you could argue he couldn't be driving an MPV because it cannot be driven after the crash and therefore making the whole chase irrelevant.

mb1725

I assume this decision could set a precedent?

Jogathon

That is so crazy? I really don't understand the logic of this. Is there more to the case than we know? Who is this 26 year old <snip> and is he related to someone important in Drogheda or elsewhere?

Barr

mb1725 wrote: »

I assume this decision could set a precedent?

I'm sure others will try use it as a get out clause in court. Crazy decision by the Judge.

MugMugs

Beer Baron wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

Actually. Had the Gardai been chasing him and kept him in sight before being breath tested he would've been done for drink driving.

Surely if you got this judge you could argue he couldn't be driving an MPV because it cannot be driven after the crash and therefore making the whole chase irrelevant.

Barr wrote: »

MugMugs wrote: »

The key here is that he wasn't seen driving the car whilst pissed therefore wasn't in drunken charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Would this not be evidence enough

"Garda said there was one person in the driving seat of the car, the engine was running, the lights were on and the keys were in the ignition. She spoke to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056680129, who was in the driving seat, and he was awake and responsive"

No. If he was being chased and crashed and watched until he was breathalysed then he could be done for drink.driving before he imobilised the vehicle.

The key here is that he could've drank post accident and had commited no crime as the vehicle WAS imobilised by the time the Gardai got there.

It has to be beyond reasonable doubt and in this case the judge deemed that it wasn't. He's one very lucky person if you ask me.

Irish drink driving law is crazy. The offender has to be in sight of the Gardai at all times during the process. This makes convictions difficult.

bladespin

Jogathon wrote: »

That is so crazy? I really don't understand the logic of this. Is there more to the case than we know? Who is this 26 year old Damien Kierans and is he related to someone important in Drogheda or elsewhere?

As I understand it's actually far too simple, the gardai can only report on what they observe, a car too damaged to drive and a drunk beside it, you cannot assume the drunk was driving if the car isn't driving or capable of being driven so case dismissed, this has happened before many times I'm sure.

ABajaninCork

Crazy. Just crazy.

Yer man thought it was his lucky day. The pity of it all is, he probably won't learn his lesson, go off and do it again with possible worse consequences...

I despair.

hondasam

Lots of people get of drink driving charges on a technicality.

Barr

I'm guessing his Insurers will not pay out given the circumstances.

MugMugs

He wasn't convicted. They could well have to.

bladespin

Barr wrote: »

I'm guessing his Insurers will not pay out given the circumstances.

I'd be pretty sure they will, no law broken, car badly damaged etc. etc.

latenia

So to take the judge's logic to the extreme, you could be standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand, covered in blood, but as the person was already dead when the gardaí arrived, you couldn't actually be guilty of taking a human life? Are there no other charges they can bring now? As far as I can tell, this decision gives carte blanche to anyone who feels like going for a joyride, as long as they make sure to total the car when they're finished.

franksm

That case beggars belief. Someone needs to look into just how competent that judge isn't.

ShadowHearth

So if I am completely drunk while driving and hear the sirens behind me, then I increase speed and ram the nearest lamppost?

No drink driving as I was not driving...

Honesty, wtf? I still can't understand their reasoning behind it?!

MugMugs

ShadowHearth wrote: »

So if I am completely drunk while driving and hear the sirens behind me, then I increase speed and ram the nearest lamppost?

No drink driving as I was not driving...

Honesty, wtf? I still can't understand their reasoning behind it?!

Eh, no. You can be done for drink driving. It's only if you're out of sight of the Gardai post crash.

bladespin

latenia wrote: »

So to take the judge's logic to the extreme, you could be standing over a dead body with a knife in your hand, covered in blood, but as the person was already dead when the gardaí arrived, you couldn't actually be guilty of taking a human life? Are there no other charges they can bring now? As far as I can tell, this decision gives carte blanche to anyone who feels like going for a joyride, as long as they make sure to total the car when they're finished.

Yes, just standing over a body with a knife covered in blood doesn't make you guilty of anything.

bladespin

franksm wrote: »

That case beggars belief. Someone needs to look into just how competent that judge isn't.

Again, the problem isn't competency, it's actually the opposite, rigid enforcement of the law.

hondasam

franksm wrote: »

That case beggars belief. Someone needs to look into just how competent that judge isn't.

I'm sure the judge knows the law. It's not as simple as it seems.

Barr

If this was a civil case I'm sure he wouldn't have got off.

Armin_Tamzarian

Flann Brennan is fairly well known for making bizarre rulings.

hondasam

latenia wrote: »

As far as I can tell, this decision gives carte blanche to anyone who feels like going for a joyride, as long as they make sure to total the car when they're finished.

It would not be unusual for someone to write of a car while drunk and then report it stolen. People do all sorts of things to get of charges.

Armin_Tamzarian

It's retarded, plain and simple.
The fact that it isn't technically an MPV post-event is irrelevant.

_Kaiser_

As I read it (twisted as it is)..

This would only work if you hadn't been observed (by the Gardai) driving the car beforehand.

If they only turn up AFTER you've crashed it/written it off then I SUPPOSE in theory there is no evidence that you were driving it at all.. you could have been walking along in your drunken haze and decided that you'll just have a little rest in this totalled car you came across? :rolleyes:

ResearchWill

biko wrote: »

Not a lawyer but wasn't the point that he could drive it to the scene?
Not being able to drive it away from the scene is irrelevant.

There are two district drink driving offences, one is driving the others is being in charge with intention to drive. In the first one if it's a sample case there is a legal requirement that the sample is taken within 3 hours of driving. If there are no witness as to when the crash happened then it's difficult to prove that case.

The second dd charge which was in this case, bring in charge with the intention to drive well you can't drive a car that will not drive so that one goes out the window.

ResearchWill

Beer Baron wrote: »

If a Garda is chasing you in your car then you:

Crash into a pole so badly your car is "undriveable" so you can then argue that no chase could ever have existed because the car is now in bits.

Judge: You ran a bus full of orphans and nuns off a ravine and they all died in a terrible ball of fire

Barrister: He then crashed his car into a pole and wrote it off

Judge: No problem so, case dismissed. Car couldn't have been moving anyway, must have been an act of god or something

That would not work, as the Garda can give evidence of driving so it s drink driving you would be charged with not drunk in charge with the intention of driving.

ResearchWill

franksm wrote: »

That case beggars belief. Someone needs to look into just how competent that judge isn't.

The judge is in fact correctly applying the law as drafted by the Dail, based on the evidence before him, remember judges must act only on evidence and the law.

ResearchWill

ShadowHearth wrote: »

So if I am completely drunk while driving and hear the sirens behind me, then I increase speed and ram the nearest lamppost?

No drink driving as I was not driving...

Honesty, wtf? I still can't understand their reasoning behind it?!

No that is not what the judgement said, if that happened he would have been done for drink driving, he was charged with beng in charge of a mpg with the intention to drive while intoxicated.

ResearchWill

Barr wrote: »

If this was a civil case I'm sure he wouldn't have got off.

You are correct, the civil standard of proof is much lower than criminal, it's on the balance of probabilities. Where criminal is beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case for damaging the pole the judge would say on balance he was driving when car crashed so he must pay.

ResearchWill

Armin_Tamzarian wrote: »

It's retarded, plain and simple.
The fact that it isn't technically an MPV post-event is irrelevant.

It's very relevant to the charge the current RTA says

5.— (1) A person commits an offence if, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place with intent to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle (but not driving or attempting to drive it), he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle

Barr

So am I right in thinking that <snip> defence was based on him telling the judge he started drinking after crashing his car whilst sitting in the drivers seat waiting for the Gards to arrive :eek:

The mind boggles

ResearchWill

Barr wrote: »

So am I right in thinking that Damien Kierans defence was based on him telling the judge he started drinking after crashing his car whilst sitting in the drivers seat waiting for the Gards to arrive :eek:

The mind boggles

No his defence was keeping his mouth shut, thankfully in this country you don't prove your innocence the state prove your guilt. I would guess in this case AGS closed the case, barrister for accused sought direction as charge not proved. The accused would have said nothing or offered any explanation.

Armin_Tamzarian

ResearchWill wrote: »

It's very relevant to the charge the current RTA says

5.— (1) A person commits an offence if, when in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place with intent to drive or attempt to drive the vehicle (but not driving or attempting to drive it), he or she is under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle

You are correct.
I thought he had been charged with drink driving.

Barr

ResearchWill wrote: »

No his defence was keeping his mouth shut, thankfully in this country you don't prove your innocence the state prove your guilt. I would guess in this case AGS closed the case, barrister for accused sought direction as charge not proved. The accused would have said nothing or offered any explanation.

Would the Gards not have taken a statement from the accused after the incident. It seems crazy he never had to give an explanation.

Victor

mb1725 wrote: »

I assume this decision could set a precedent?

District court, no formal precedent.

ResearchWill

Barr wrote: »

Would the Gards not have taken a statement from the accused after the incident. It seems crazy he never had to give an explanation.

In drink driving it's very rare to take a statement. Also thankfully you do still in most cases have the right to silence. Even if he was asked questions I assume he just said no comment.

We don't yet usually require citizens to actually convict themselves.

Why as a matter of interest do you think it's crazy that a person would not try and give an explanation, even if that explanation is the only evidence to convict himself. There are very good reasons we have the right to silence.

Barr

ResearchWill wrote: »

In drink driving it's very rare to take a statement. Also thankfully you do still in most cases have the right to silence. Even if he was asked questions I assume he just said no comment.

We don't yet usually require citizens to actually convict themselves.

Why as a matter of interest do you think it's crazy that a person would not try and give an explanation, even if that explanation is the only evidence to convict himself. There are very good reasons we have the right to silence.

I just thought if you were going to be convicted in a court case you would have to submit some form of defence to the charges.

I’m not familiar with the law but thought it would be logical for the prosecution to ask the accused if they were drink driving during the course of the trial?

ResearchWill

Barr wrote: »

I just thought if you were going to be convicted in a court case you would have to submit some form of defence to the charges.

I’m not familiar with the law but thought it would be logical for the prosecution to ask the accused if they were drink driving during the course of the trial?

I understand what you are saying but the right to silence which includes the right not to get into the stand is a corner stone of ours and many other legal systems. Again it's not up to any person to prove innocence all people enter court innocent of the charge, it is up to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty. Remember this is to protect you as much as anyone else.

bladespin

Barr wrote: »

So am I right in thinking that Damien Kierans defence was based on him telling the judge he started drinking after crashing his car whilst sitting in the drivers seat waiting for the Gards to arrive :eek:

The mind boggles

No, he wouldn't have to say anything of the sort, nor defend himself, merely the fact that he could have been drinking after the crash would be enough.