Undriveable car, case dismissed

ResearchWill

bladespin wrote: »

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.

In this case it mattered not if he drank after, the issue was while he was in charge if the vehicle, according to AGS evidence he could not have intended to drive it.

The hip flask defence has in any case been abolished for the most part.

DeeRottie

Jesus this is ridiculous. The car was an MPV while he was in control of it; surely the fact that the car couldn't start up and drive itself into the pole shows that although it is 'no longer' an MPV it was at the time of accident and when the accused was in control? Otherwise should the onus not be on the defense to prove someone else drove the car into the pole and afterwards the accused got into the car with no intent to drive? If you wanna twist the law on a technicality, surely you can do it on the other side too? Makes me sick. I cannot see how you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was NOT driving drunk.

ResearchWill

DeeRottie wrote: »

Jesus this is ridiculous. The car was an MPV while he was in control of it; surely the fact that the car couldn't start up and drive itself into the pole shows that although it is 'no longer' an MPV it was at the time of accident and when the accused was in control? Otherwise should the onus not be on the defense to prove someone else drove the car into the pole and afterwards the accused got into the car with no intent to drive? If you wanna twist the law on a technicality, surely you can do it on the other side too? Makes me sick. I cannot see how you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was NOT driving drunk.

If you read any one of the explanations you would know he could not be charged with drink driving because there was no one who saw him drive. So he was charged with being in control of a mpv with the intention to drive, you can not intend to drive a car that can't drive, the intention must be a future intention and can even be an intention to drive in a couple of hours. But it Is necessary to show the mpv can actually drive.

Guy:Incognito

Did they get a proper qualified opinion that the car wasnt drivable or just the gards opinion? Outside of "jesus you wouldnt be able to legally drive that yoke in the state its in" what gives the Gards opinion any weight?

How bad can it have been if it was still running?

ResearchWill

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Did they get a proper qualified opinion that the car wasnt drivable or just the gards opinion? Outside of "jesus you wouldnt be able to legally drive that yoke in the state its in" what gives the Gards opinion any weight?

How bad can it have been that it was still running?

According to the report the Garda said the car had to be taken away by truck as it could not be driven, considering it was a head on I doubt if the engine even turned over.

Even if they did get such an expert opinion then you would have an issue of two state witness contradicting each other it's not normal for the state to call a witness against their own witness.

Guy:Incognito

ResearchWill wrote: »

considering it was a head on I doubt if the engine even turned over.

The story says the car was still running.

ResearchWill

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The story says the car was still running.

Sorry, you are correct must have been due to wheel damage or some other reason. But in any case it was the garda evidence it was not capable of driving.

mikemac1

Barrister Irene Sands has some nerve to even use that as an argument

But her client won so I guess she found a loophole so she was smart
Should become a TD with those skills!


Looks ridiculous, is there no common sense in law?

Seth Brundle

mikemac1 wrote: »

Barrister Irene Sands has some nerve to even use that as an argument

She did her job and did it well. You can't fault her for using the law.
Maybe ask why a case was taken when this outcome was likely. Why wasn't the driver charged for something else like dangerous driving?

ResearchWill

mikemac1 wrote: »

Barrister Irene Sands has some nerve to even use that as an argument

But her client so I guess she found a loophole so she was smart
Should become a TD with those skills!


Looks ridiculous, is there no common sense in law?

To be convicted of drink driving in a sample case, there must be evidence of driving within 3 hours of the sample. That is logical can't be convicted of drink driving if someone saw you driving say yesterday and sample take 24 hours later. As no evidence of him driving within the 3 hours then can't be convicted of that.

So next option is drunk in charge, but for that there needs to be an intention to drive, again that is logical, say you drive to local you have arranged to meet your wife to drive you both home you are still legally in charge of the car even if not sitting in it, but as you can prove you have no intention to drive you are ok. The intention to drive is normally a proof put on the accused. But in this case the Garda in cross I imagine admitted the car could not drive so no intention.

mikemac1

Aye, I suppose she deserves credit
She won for her client

Fair enough

ResearchWill

kbannon wrote: »

She did her job and did it well. You can't fault her for using the law.
Maybe ask why a case was taken when this outcome was likely. Why wasn't the driver charged for something else like dangerous driving?

Again no proof of driving, or that it was dangerous. If that was the case every guy who ended up in a ditch would be guilty of dangerous driving.

mikemac1

Intention to drive

Why then do I read in the forum of people getting convicted when all they did was have a few drinks, use your key to put on the heater and sleep it off in the car.
I've done this, guess I was lucky I did it somewhere quiet

But maybe the garda strolls along, taps on the window and you end up in district court

Intention to drive? If you are sleeping in the car you have no intention to drive but the court won't accept that.

Smash your car into a ditch, garda comes along and it's the opposite, you can win your court case

ResearchWill

mikemac1 wrote: »

Intention to drive

Why then do I read in the forum of people getting convicted when all they did was have a few drinks, use your key to put on the heater and sleep it off in the car.
I've done this, guess I was lucky I did it somewhere quiet

But maybe the garda strolls along, taps on the window and you end up in district court

Intention to drive? If you are sleeping in the car you have no intention to drive but the court won't accept that.

Smash your car into a ditch, garda comes along and it's the opposite, you can win your court case

There is case law on that very issue, and because the guys usually say to the AGS I was going to drive in a few hours there is your future intention. Once in charge is shown its usually an issue for the accused to prove he did not have a intention. But in this case AGS did it for him.

carbon nanotube

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.

thats retarded, Irelands courts are gas.

so lets get this straight. based on aforementioned stoner in louth.

a person hammered with booze, smacks into a MPV carrying 4 kids and a parent. killing them all.

the guys car so mangled its no longer a 'mechanically bla bla bla'

verdict.


case dismissed.

:rolleyes:

note to self, in future if you ever happen to have a couple in Ireland bring a sledge hammer in the boot just in case.

colm_mcm

I remember a similar case in cork around 15 years ago, lady was caught drunk driving coming down a hill, car was unroadworthy, it was argued that the car wasn't mechanically propelled at the time of being caught and she got off.

franksm

bladespin wrote: »

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

Then there's something not right about the law.

I though the judge was supposed to ensure the correct 'outcome' and not just follow the letter of the law like a computer.

Must be really frustrating to be a victim of crime, or vicitim of a drunk driver, or indeed to be a police officer and have to put up with this at the end of your hard graft.

ResearchWill

franksm wrote: »

Then there's something not right about the law.

I though the judge was supposed to ensure the correct 'outcome' and not just follow the letter of the law like a computer.

Must be really frustrating to be a victim of crime, or vicitim of a drunk driver, or indeed to be a police officer and have to put up with this at the end of your hard graft.

So you think a judge should find a person guilty of a crime even if the evidence does not support such a conviction.

ResearchWill

carbon nanotube wrote: »

thats retarded, Irelands courts are gas.

so lets get this straight. based on aforementioned stoner in louth.

a person hammered with booze, smacks into a MPV carrying 4 kids and a parent. killing them all.

the guys car so mangled its no longer a 'mechanically bla bla bla'

verdict.


case dismissed.

:rolleyes:

note to self, in future if you ever happen to have a couple in Ireland bring a sledge hammer in the boot just in case.

In a prosecution for dangerous driving causing death, as you outlined above the person would more than likely be convicted. It is a different charge to drink driving which is a very technical offence. There is not enough space to go into the differences. But I can assure you in a prosecution for dangerous driving causing death the guy would more than likely be convicted.

Marlow

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.

A statement while the person accused is drunk can not be taken as valid. A statement given after you sober up, would have been taken into account though. "I have no clear recollection of that" comes to mind.

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Did they get a proper qualified opinion that the car wasnt drivable or just the gards opinion? Outside of "jesus you wouldnt be able to legally drive that yoke in the state its in" what gives the Gards opinion any weight?

How bad can it have been if it was still running?

The garda's job in the case of an accident is to be able to determine what happened and they're also qualified to judge, if the car is drivable or not.

How would they otherwise judge if your car is roadworthy or not.

If they deemed the car not being able to move on it's own, then that is considered a professional assessment. It could be poor judgement, but it's still considered a professional assessment by the law, as that's part of the job of a Garda.

Also, what has to be considered is, that the person crashing the car could have been taken drink "after" he crashed. A bottle in the car would be enough to manifest that claim.

As there is no evidence to what state the person driving was before and during the crash, the only evidence is what the accused admits to or what can be judged from the crash scene.

In this case: "The accused was in a non-drivable car (hence no intend to drive) in a drunken condition". Due to lack of witnesses, everything else is assumption and not admissable in court.

It's the same, if lets say the garda follow up on a dangerous driving/speeding offense, come to your home and find you with a bottle in the hand. Even if you were drunk at the time of the offense, they could not bring you to court for drunk driving. Only for the witnessed charges.

/M

Guy:Incognito

Marlow wrote: »

The garda's job in the case of an accident is to be able to determine what happened and they're also qualified to judge, if the car is drivable or not.

How would they otherwise judge if your car is roadworthy or not.

If the deemed the car not being able to move on it's own, then that is considered a professional assessment. It could be poor judgement, but it's still considered a professional assessment by the law, as that's part of the job of a Garda.

I would argue that there should be somethign more concrete than a Gards judgement in a case that is potentially so very serious.

Plenty of Gards have no interest in cars whatsoever, couldnt tell one end from the other and dont even drive themselves. How they could give an assesment on the stae of roadworthyness of a car is suspect at best.

Plenty of Gards would probably deem a Xantia with a missing wheel to be undrivable..........

ResearchWill

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I would argue that there should be somethign more concrete than a Gards judgement in a case that is potentially so very serious.

Plenty of Gards have no interest in cars whatsoever, couldnt tell one end from the other and dont even drive themselves. How they could give an assesment on the stae of roadworthyness of a car is suspect at best.

Plenty of Gards would probably deem a Xantia with a missing wheel to be undrivable..........

Who takes the prosecution for drink driving? It's the Garda. Who runs the case? It's the Garda. Who decides on the evidence to be presented? It's the Garda. Who gives evidence of what happened at the scene? Anyone there, in this case the Garda.

We do not have an inquisitorial system the judge can only make his or her decision on the information presented to him or her, if not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt the the person is guilty of the offence charged, he or she can not find the person guilty.

Guy:Incognito

ResearchWill wrote: »

Who takes the prosecution for drink driving? It's the Garda. Who runs the case? It's the Garda. Who decides on the evidence to be presented? It's the Garda. Who gives evidence of what happened at the scene? Anyone there, in this case the Garda.
.

All things they are trained in presumably? They are not mechanics though.

mb1725

The defendant was in court previously for another drink related incident:
http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/refused-to-pay-fare-2204207.html

ResearchWill

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

All things they are trained in presumably? They are not mechanics though.

But they are considered experts in giving certain evidence, only an expert can give evidence of his or her opinion. The Garda said the car was towed because it was not able to be driven once the judge heard that he had to go with the accused.

ResearchWill

mb1725 wrote: »

The defendant was in court previously for another drink related incident:
http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/refused-to-pay-fare-2204207.html

Seems he likes to fall asleep in cars with a bit of drink in him. Just shows he took a taxi the other time.

Guy:Incognito

ResearchWill wrote: »

But they are considered experts in giving certain evidence, only an expert can give evidence of his or her opinion.

Thats my point. She may be the most expert peron in the world at giving evidence base don her opinion. It means **** all if her opinion is wrong.

We dont know if that Garda is even capable of putting fuel in a car, nevermind determining if its driveable.

Guy:Incognito

ResearchWill wrote: »

Seems he likes to fall asleep in cars with a bit of drink in him. Just shows he took a taxi the other time.

Maybe someone stole his car, crashed it and ran off. HE then wanders by on his way home from the pub, says "hey, my car" and jumps in for a sleep.:)

Marlow

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Thats my point. She may be the most expert peron in the world at giving evidence base don her opinion. It means **** all if her opinion is wrong.

We dont know if that Garda is even capable of putting fuel in a car, nevermind determining if its driveable.

Might very well be, but that's how the garda and the law work in this and many other countries. If you don't like it, then you might want to go into politics or law and change to something better. Until then, that's the way it functions.

The judgement is pretty clear cut based on what laws we have and what the evidence was. There's no fault in the judgement of the judge based on the evidence and statements given.

/M

ResearchWill

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Thats my point. She may be the most expert peron in the world at giving evidence base don her opinion. It means **** all if her opinion is wrong.

We dont know if that Garda is even capable of putting fuel in a car, nevermind determining if its driveable.

You are exactly right, but the judge must decide the case on what's in front of him, if the evidence from the state says the guy is innocent then what can the judge do. He can not and should not say I'm ignoring all the evidence and going with my hunch.

franksm

Thread has gone to pot, IMHO.

The facts reported are this:

Garda Clarke attended the scene and saw the vehicle had impacted with a telegraph poll [sic] just off the right hand lane. 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. His speech was slurred and there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Intoxiliser test gave a reading of 84mg/100ml of breath.
Vehicle was removed from the scene by a recovery company as it was undriveable. It had been severely impacted by the accident.

As the letter of the law goes, the charge was that the defendant was drunk in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Judgement was that "If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't a vehicle".

Therefore a shockingly useless judgment in terms of reasons why the drink-drive laws are in place in the first place, and setting an awful precadent for future such cases.

I hate to think how Shaun Kelly might have got off being charged for killing 8 people in the 2010 Inishowen crash. His vehicle was a cube at the end of his unfortunate deed.

The law is an ass.

ResearchWill

franksm wrote: »

Thread has gone to pot, IMHO.

The facts reported are this:

Garda Clarke attended the scene and saw the vehicle had impacted with a telegraph poll [sic] just off the right hand lane. 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. His speech was slurred and there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. Intoxiliser test gave a reading of 84mg/100ml of breath.
Vehicle was removed from the scene by a recovery company as it was undriveable. It had been severely impacted by the accident.

As the letter of the law goes, the charge was that the defendant was drunk in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Judgement was that "If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't a vehicle".

Therefore a shockingly useless judgment in terms of reasons why the drink-drive laws are in place in the first place, and setting an awful precadent for future such cases.

I hate to think how Shaun Kelly might have got off being charged for killing 8 people in the 2010 Inishowen crash. His vehicle was a cube at the end of his unfortunate deed.

The law is an ass.

The charge is drunk in charge WITH THE INTENTION TO DRIVE as evidence before court was car was incapable of driving could be no intention. Such a defence would not work in the less technical charge of dangerous driving causing death. Really not enough space to go into the explanation why.

Marlow

franksm wrote: »

As the letter of the law goes, the charge was that the defendant was drunk in control of a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Judgement was that "If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't a vehicle".

Incorrect.

The defendant was charged with the intend of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, as there was no witnesses, that he had been driving it.

As it wasn't drivable, it isn't a mechanically propelled vehicle anymore, so there can not be any intend.

Case dismissed.

/M

MugMugs

Marlow wrote: »

Incorrect.

The defendant was charged with the intend of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle, as there was no witnesses, that he had been driving it.

As it wasn't drivable, it isn't a mechanically propelled vehicle anymore, so there can not be any intend.

Case dismissed.

/M

This is it.

No debate. It's the case. It's what happened and there's a very happy Barrister out there right now

franksm

Eh ? Where is mention of 'intention' ?

http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/undriveable-car-sees-case-dismissed-3141948.html

"<snip> (25), Chapel Road, Clogherhead, was charged with being drunk in charge of an MPV at the Chord Road on September 23 last."

LOL - are you guys making stuff up to win the argument ?

Here's the complete text of the article that this thread is based on:

A MAN who was almost three times over the drink driving limit when he crashed his car into a telegraph pole had the case against him dismissed because the car was so badly damaged it could no longer be considered a mechanically propelled vehicle.

<snip> (25), Chapel Road, Clogherhead, was charged with being drunk in charge of an MPV at the Chord Road on September 23 last.

Garda Ursula Clarke told the court gardaí had received a report of a single vehicle collision on the Chord Road at 6.05 a.m. on the date in question. She attended the scene and saw the vehicle had impacted with a telegraph poll just off the right hand lane.

She 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.

Garda Clarke said <snip>'s speech was slurred and there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. The defendant was brought to Drogheda Garda Station where a subsequent intoxiliser test gave a reading of 84mg/100ml of breath.

She said the vehicle was removed from the scene by a recovery company as it was undriveable. It had been severely impacted by the accident, she said.

Defence barrister Irene Sands said a question arose as to whether the vehicle was an MPV because it was so badly damaged. She said the garda had given clear evidence that the car was not driveable and by law, if this was the case, then it could not be considered a mechanically propelled vehicle since it was not capable of being mechanically propelled because of the amount of damage.

Inspector Brendan Cadden said the evidence given was that the motor was running which meant it was still mechanically propelled. 'A severe impact doesn't mean it isn't driveable, it is mechanically propelled if the engine is still running,' he said.

However, Ms. Sands said the garda had twice agreed that the vehicle had not be driveable following the accident.

Agreeing, Judge Flann Brennan said: 'If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't an MPV, that is the law,' before dismissing the case.

MugMugs

He was being done from when the Garda arrived at the scene and saw the engine running and him pissed. You could construe it as intent or you could just say that the key was in the ignition and that the engine was running.

ResearchWill

franksm wrote: »

Eh ? Where is mention of 'intention' ?

http://www.drogheda-independent.ie/news/undriveable-car-sees-case-dismissed-3141948.html

"<snip> (25), Chapel Road, Clogherhead, was charged with being drunk in charge of an MPV at the Chord Road on September 23 last."

LOL - are you guys making stuff up to win the argument ?

Here's the complete text of the article that this thread is based on:

A MAN who was almost three times over the drink driving limit when he crashed his car into a telegraph pole had the case against him dismissed because the car was so badly damaged it could no longer be considered a mechanically propelled vehicle.

<snip> (25), Chapel Road, Clogherhead, was charged with being drunk in charge of an MPV at the Chord Road on September 23 last.

Garda Ursula Clarke told the court gardaí had received a report of a single vehicle collision on the Chord Road at 6.05 a.m. on the date in question. She attended the scene and saw the vehicle had impacted with a telegraph poll just off the right hand lane.

She 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.

Garda Clarke said <snip>'s speech was slurred and there was a strong smell of alcohol on his breath. The defendant was brought to Drogheda Garda Station where a subsequent intoxiliser test gave a reading of 84mg/100ml of breath.

She said the vehicle was removed from the scene by a recovery company as it was undriveable. It had been severely impacted by the accident, she said.

Defence barrister Irene Sands said a question arose as to whether the vehicle was an MPV because it was so badly damaged. She said the garda had given clear evidence that the car was not driveable and by law, if this was the case, then it could not be considered a mechanically propelled vehicle since it was not capable of being mechanically propelled because of the amount of damage.

Inspector Brendan Cadden said the evidence given was that the motor was running which meant it was still mechanically propelled. 'A severe impact doesn't mean it isn't driveable, it is mechanically propelled if the engine is still running,' he said.

However, Ms. Sands said the garda had twice agreed that the vehicle had not be driveable following the accident.

Agreeing, Judge Flann Brennan said: 'If it wasn't driveable then it wasn't an MPV, that is the law,' before dismissing the case.

Maybe we took the issue from the law just maybe the relevant legislation is more correct than a newspaper article just maybe.


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.

jluv

One thing is for sure..We should all be scared when this guy goes out for a few drinks.He lucked out this time but doesn't take away from what could have happened.My original response was "No way can this happen" but after reading the responses I think the judge had no choice and I'm sure he was not exactly happy at letting him off..

ResearchWill

jluv wrote: »

One thing is for sure..We should all be scared when this guy goes out for a few drinks.He lucked out this time but doesn't take away from what could have happened.My original response was "No way can this happen" but after reading the responses I think the judge had no choice and I'm sure he was not exactly happy at letting him off..

I can assure you DJ usually do not like leaving guys off.

dr.fuzzenstein

What a classy guy.
Now he should sue for wrongful arrest and the ruination of his good name. Hope he gets a million.:rolleyes:

gk5000

franksm wrote: »

....

The law is an ass.

It's more that the legal profession make an ass of the law to line their own pockets at our expense.

Judges are ex-barristers and continue to look after their own.

bladespin

gk5000 wrote: »

It's more that the legal profession make an ass of the law to line their own pockets at our expense.

Judges are ex-barristers and continue to look after their own.

No, it's more the laws are hastily and carelessly prepared, rushed through to quiet the masses and then taken apart by professionals doing what they're paid to do.

Milk & Honey

Road Traffic Act, 1961
3. Interpretation

[“(2) Where a vehicle, which, apart from this subsection, would be a mechanically propelled vehicle, stands so substantially disabled (either through collision, 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—
(a) for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2010, if it is disabled through collision, as continuing to be a mechanically propelled vehicle, and
(b) for all other purposes of this Act as not being a mechanically propelled vehicle.”]

The prosecutor should be prepared properly before going into court. The question of the crashed vehicle could have been dealt with under the Section above.

Reg'stoy

Once again the duplicity of the posters on this particular forum needs to be pointed out. There are loads of a nod and a wink threads here, but God forbid someone should be seen to get away with something they!!! disagree with.

The guy got <snip> because his counsel (for which he paid for) used a point of law (rightly or wrongly) which was available. I highlight the what!! as he has been found guilty of nothing because he choose (more than likely under excellent advice) to question a charge as is his/her entitlement under the law.

We can't really advocate, that when available one should question where possible a charge; without accepting that on occasion, people will succeed with a challenge we disagree with.

Before I'm accused of allowing someone to get away with 'drink driving', I am simply saying that if we want a system of law where we as citizens are able to challenge said laws; we have to accept that on occasion a challenge will be made (and succeed) that we don't necessarily like.

Armin_Tamzarian

Reg'stoy wrote: »

Once again the duplicity of the posters on this particular forum needs to be pointed out. There are loads of a nod and a wink threads here, but God forbid someone should be seen to get away with something they!!! disagree with.

The guy got <snip> because his counsel (for which he paid for) used a point of law (rightly or wrongly) which was available. I highlight the what!! as he has been found guilty of nothing because he choose (more than likely under excellent advice) to question a charge as is his/her entitlement under the law.

We can't really advocate, that when available one should question where possible a charge; without accepting that on occasion, people will succeed with a challenge we disagree with.

Before I'm accused of allowing someone to get away with 'drink driving', I am simply saying that if we want a system of law where we as citizens are able to challenge said laws; we have to accept that on occasion a challenge will be made (and succeed) that we don't necessarily like.

I think the problem is that the person in question was <snip> and got off on a technicality.
They were not some innocent party who was wrongfully accused.
If I was in the defendant's position I would do the same thing and try to get off, that doesn't make it right.
Let's see how popular this ruling becomes if the same guy does this again and ploughs into some innocent pedestrian next time.
If Milk&Honey's post is accurate then it is the Garda / DPP who were at fault in this case.