Why was this excuse accepted?

godtabh

Link

TOM TUITE – 10 SEPTEMBER 2013

MODEL turned actress Vivienne Connolly was spared a fine and the possibility of four penalty points on her licence when she appeared in court for speeding.

The former top model faced a summons which had been issued against her for driving in excess of a 50kph built-up area speed limit, at Conyngham Road, in Dublin, on the afternoon of September 17 last year.

The mother-of-two had to come to court as a result of the non-payment of a €80 fixed charge notice, which also results in two penalty points being recorded. However, she fought her ground and was cleared after pointing out that she never received the notice.

As she handed in her driver's licence, Traffic Department Garda Gareth Vance told Judge Michael Coghlan at Dublin District Court that he had been operating a speed camera.

He detected her driving a '05-reg car “at 64kph in an area governed by a 50kph speed limit”, the court heard.

Judge Coghlan then said to her “it might be better if I don't hear it” and asked “do I know you?”

Ms Connolly, who represented herself in the case, paused before answering, “you might do”.

The judge then suggested an adjournment to another date and said he hoped that would not inconvenience her.

She then spoke up and said “we do not know each other personally” before adding, “I am an actor”.

Ms Connolly, who was wearing a purple T-shirt, pink trousers and runners, then confirmed that she was happy for Judge Coghlan to deal with the case.

She accepted the garda's evidence but said “I did not receive the notification” referring to the fixed penalty charge adding that she would have paid.

Ms Connolly, who has an address in Castleknock, Dublin, said “no” when asked if she had changed address.

She thanked Judge Coghlan who said that in the circumstances he was striking out the case.

His order left the actor spared the possibility of an increased fine and having four penalty points recorded on her licence.

I thought the I didnt get defence wasn't acceptable in court? If as it now appear is is acceptable does the court case set a precedent?

jinkybhoy

I think she still has to pay the original fine and 2 penalty points. But I was under the impression that "i didn't get it" wasn't allowed.

NoQuarter

There was more than likely more to what went on than that.

camphor

godtabh wrote: »

Link



I thought the I didnt get defence wasn't acceptable in court? If as it now appear is is acceptable does the court case set a precedent?

It can't set a precedent as it is a district Court case. The excuse can be accepted if the judge believes it. Sometimes judges do not believe it.

johnnyskeleton

godtabh wrote: »

I thought the I didnt get defence wasn't acceptable in court? If as it now appear is is acceptable does the court case set a precedent?

It depends on whether you are lying or telling the truth. If you are lying, then no, it is not a defence, but if you genuinely didn't receive the fixed charge notice and were going to pay then it can be a defence.

drunkmonkey

14kph is fairly borderline, what's the margin of error on her car and the gun, Garda should have nearly let that one slide. Judge had a bit of sense.

Victor

drunkmonkey wrote: »

14kph is fairly borderline,

No it isn't

what's the margin of error on her car

The car is always required to read higher than the actual speed.

what's the margin of error on ... the gun

Probably in the order of ±1km/h. Handheld retail ones for €150 are in the order of ±1km/h.

Merelyme

It may well be a case of the old Latin defence 'Tittus Magnificus' but I could be wrong.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

washman3

NoQuarter wrote: »

There was more than likely more to what went on than that.

Yip, she's part of Dublin's Golden Circle.
Any ordinary person that would put up that defence would simply be laughed out of the court, maybe be even held in contempt.;)

Zambia

She presented her case and the judge accepted it.

From what I gather she has copped to the actual offence.

Surely if there is a doubt in the judges mind that she received the first notification he can't penalise her for not doing so.

How can you impose a penalty on someone based on the premise the post is 100 percent infallible.

Oh and on what planet is 14 kmph marginal :-)

Victor

Zambia wrote: »

How can you impose a penalty on someone based on the premise the post is 100 percent infallible.

Well, they may have broken the law.

Arguing that one is 'entitled' to a fixed penalty notice is rather weak.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zambia

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Well the government chose to make speeding a fixed charge offence.

True but to charge someone for a failure in a postal service is on shaky ground.

How many reminders were sent in relation to this notice?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

source

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Zero.

One, initial notice is sent with 28 days to pay, if not paid second notice is issued raising the fine and giving another 28 days to pay the increased fine.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

source

Fred Swanson wrote: »

So there is now a second notice? Has that been happening for long?

I remember people coming into the station with them when I was a guard, I left the job in 2011.

Santa Cruz

Merelyme wrote: »

It may well be a case of the old Latin defence 'Tittus Magnificus' but I could be wrong.

Well there was an old Judge in Dublin District Court who was particularly prone to the influence of an extra button open on the female defendant's blouse. Breaking down in to tears always towards a fine reduction or even strike out too

nuac

So a former "top model" shows up in the District Court wearing T shirt, jeans and runners?

Are there any bottom, average, ordinary or common or garden models?

Bad choices from someone who should know better.

But if Judge believed her, it worked.

However on balance Judges are more likely to believe somebody who is well and appropriately dressed.

nuac

Santa Cruz wrote: »

Well there was an old Judge in Dublin District Court who was particularly prone to the influence of an extra button open on the female defendant's blouse. Breaking down in to tears always towards a fine reduction or even strike out too

But now there are many female judges about. That ploy can be counter-productive

hullaballoo

nuac wrote: »

So a former "top model" shows up in the District Court wearing T shirt, jeans and runners?

Are there any bottom, average, ordinary or common or garden models?

Bad choices from someone who should know better.

But if Judge believed her, it worked.

However on balance Judges are more likely to believe somebody who is well and appropriately dressed.

There are quite a few bottom models if you know what to google.

Zambia

Boom tish

littlemac1980

Seems from the report that she was polite to the Judge, and presented her case well.

That will always work in your favour, particularly in the District Court.

Its unfortunate that she didn't think to ask the Judge for his Oath though, because had she done that - both he, the guard and the Minister would have had to pay her for attending the Court.

Maybe next time.

intospace

1. Must the prosecution hand into the court the regulations making the respective offence a fixed charge penalty one, as a formal proof in a case like this?

2. Didnt the road traffic act 2010 introduce a presumption of postage/receipt regarding the fixed charge notice, which can only be rebutted with evidence?

Victor

intospace wrote: »

1. Must the prosecution hand into the court the regulations making the respective offence a fixed charge penalty one, as a formal proof in a case like this?

The judge might insist on full proof the first time they come across legislation, but after that, usually wouldn't insist on a formal proof unless a particular nuance or novel challenge arose.

Peregrinus

intospace wrote: »

1. Must the prosecution hand into the court the regulations making the respective offence a fixed charge penalty one, as a formal proof in a case like this?

Legislation is a matter of judicial notice. It doesn't require to be formally proved.

Having said that, if it's new or rarely-invoked legislation, or if you plan on marking an argument which turns on the exact wording of the legislation, you'd be wise to bring a copy with you to hand to the judge for his convenience.

camphor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Legislation is a matter of judicial notice. It doesn't require to be formally proved.

Having said that, if it's new or rarely-invoked legislation, or if you plan on marking an argument which turns on the exact wording of the legislation, you'd be wise to bring a copy with you to hand to the judge for his convenience.

Judicial notice is only taken of Statutes. Secondary regulations such as Statutory instruments or bye laws must be proved. AN exception exists in the case or well known SI's etc.

TommiesTank

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Seems from the report that she was polite to the Judge, and presented her case well.

That will always work in your favour, particularly in the District Court.

Its unfortunate that she didn't think to ask the Judge for his Oath though, because had she done that - both he, the guard and the Minister would have had to pay her for attending the Court.

Maybe next time.

His oats, did you say?

intospace

camphor wrote: »

Judicial notice is only taken of Statutes. Secondary regulations such as Statutory instruments or bye laws must be proved. AN exception exists in the case or well known SI's etc.

Doesnt the continued existence of part v offences against state act have to be formally proven in scheduled offence cases?

If submitting regulations etc as formal proofs, must they be from iris oifigiul?

FreudianSlippers

washman3 wrote: »

Yip, she's part of Dublin's Golden Circle.
Any ordinary person that would put up that defence would simply be laughed out of the court, maybe be even held in contempt.;)

Mustn't be too golden these days in a 2005. psh.

washman3

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Mustn't be too golden these days in a 2005. psh.

Looks like most of the sugar daddies are in exile now..:) many on the run and virtually broke.!!

Carawaystick

Peregrinus wrote: »

Legislation is a matter of judicial notice. It doesn't require to be formally proved.

Having said that, if it's new or rarely-invoked legislation, or if you plan on marking an argument which turns on the exact wording of the legislation, you'd be wise to bring a copy with you to hand to the judge for his convenience.

So Ignorantia juris non excusat is only for the little people then?