Stopped by Gards..... Quick question.

dr.fuzzenstein

corktina wrote: »

what evidence could there be except the Gard sayng he saw you?

Or someone with a similar name or close enough...

Zubeneschamali

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Or someone with a similar name or close enough...

Again, if it gets to court, the judge will just ask Banjo if he was written up by that guard. Do you want him to lie to the court?

Banjo String

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Again, if it gets to court, the judge will just ask Banjo if he was written up by that guard. Do you want him to lie to the court?

Let's just hope it doesn't get to court. I'll lose all faith in our justice system if I'm summonsed to court, not for non payment of a fine, but for being unable to do so because of the Gardai spelling error.

I really hope the gards receive some kind of communication from post office that I went in to pay, and they were unwilling to process it, as the fixed notice was (in their opinion) a different man that the one standing in front of them.

Alternatively, if the gards come to my house to issue me the summons, can I prevent the fixed penalty notice, with document from post office attached at the front door?

Is that enough to halt court proceedings?

Zubeneschamali

Banjo String wrote: »

Is that enough to halt court proceedings?

No. The Post Office are certainly not going to call the guards and say some other guy tried to pay a fine. The guard delivering a summons is not going to consider evidence on the doorstep - not his job.

If you contact the original guard and say you tried to pay and couldn't, there is some chance that he might think a judge will strike it out, and give up. If you call the number on the ticket and say you're having problems paying, they may sort it so that you can pay.

But a strike-out would happen on the day, in court. I think you are on iffy ground, though - if you say "I really wanted to pay", the judge may just say "no problem - talk to the clerk and he'll sort it".

It's also going to be hard to argue that you wanted to pay but couldn't, shouldn't have to because of a spelling error, and by the way, didn't do it in the first place. I think you need a solicitor if going to court with a story like that.

Banjo String

How do I get the gards Name?

guil

Ring up the fixed charge office and give them the number on the fine. They will tell you who issued it.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

biko

No more advise on evading or getting around this ticket.

dr.fuzzenstein

^^^
In fairness, anyone would want to be mental to follow a lot of the suggestions in this thread.

Banjo String

**UPDATE**

Summons arrived today. (in wrong name still)

In two minds how to play this now. Do I go to court plead not guilty, armed with phone records and photo evidence, along with written confirmation from leasing company that vehicle came fully equipped with handsfree/bluetooth from the day and hour I got it.

Or so I tell judge that I was unable to pay fine due to the Garda giving me a wrong surname (but even though I wasn't using a phone, would this be admitting 'guilt' in the eyes of the court?

It's going the full way now.

Drummerboy08

I'd go with option A, and I'd add in that the person on the summons isnt you but you were still good enough to appear in court to defend yourself.

Hooch

Id go with B if its the truth.

Option A doesn't matter. Its tried everyday of the week. What if you have two phones? Incoming call? checking Facebook? Or you just simply like holding it which is the actual offence.

If you made an attempt to pay the notice the post office would have issued you with a receipt for the payment failure. Bring that to court, explain the situation and hopefully the judge will understand.

CiniO

Hooch wrote: »

Id go with B if its the truth.

Option A doesn't matter. Its tried everyday of the week. What if you have two phones? Incoming call? checking Facebook? Or you just simply like holding it which is the actual offence.

If you made an attempt to pay the notice the post office would have issued you with a receipt for the payment failure. Bring that to court, explain the situation and hopefully the judge will understand.

Oh come on....
Are you advising OP to take consequences of offence he didn't commit, and just use the garda error to ask judge for lower sentence ?

ironclaw

Banjo String wrote: »

In two minds how to play this now. Do I go to court plead not guilty, armed with phone records and photo evidence, along with written confirmation from leasing company that vehicle came fully equipped with handsfree/bluetooth from the day and hour I got it..

The fact you have phone records and a handsfree proves absolutely nothing. The offence is for holding / supporting a phone with any part of your body, not for using it.

The only reasonably way I can see to prove this (Without the simple solution that is a rear facing DVR) would be to prove you had one phone in the car (Impossible) and then further prove the phone you did have wasn't used (i.e. The system logs on the phone itself) Then perhaps you may have a case. But then again, the offence is holding the phone. Not using it.

If it was me, I'd lean more towards the wrong name on the summons and proof you tried to pay it. But then again, attempting to pay could be seen as an admission of guilt. You'll probably end up just paying the original fine and points.

djimi

OSI wrote: »

Pretty ****ty system if the Gard is allowed to make a false observation and the OP has to bare the consequences of it unchallenged.

Welcome to Ireland...

Id love to see the OP fight this and win, but in a court room where the Garda's word will be taken as absolute gospel I just dont see it happen.

Its an absolutely ridiculous system and pathetic that it cannot be challenged properly. The word of an eye witness (even a Garda) through the window of a moving vehicle should in no way hold up in court.

Satriale

if you plead guilty, are you perjuring yourself if you didnt do it?

Stavros Murphy

Banjo String wrote: »

How do I get the gards Name?

I for one hope you get jail, and will send flowers and some lube. :P

blackis200

Banjo String wrote: »

**UPDATE**

Summons arrived today. (in wrong name still)

In two minds how to play this now. Do I go to court plead not guilty, armed with phone records and photo evidence, along with written confirmation from leasing company that vehicle came fully equipped with handsfree/bluetooth from the day and hour I got it.

Or so I tell judge that I was unable to pay fine due to the Garda giving me a wrong surname (but even though I wasn't using a phone, would this be admitting 'guilt' in the eyes of the court?

It's going the full way now.

The court will just amend the mistake in your surname on the day.
It's inconvenient to go to court and the fine is irritating if it is unjust.
Go to court. Have your say and take the chance that the court
Believes you.
The law is an ass.
The Garda is a bigger ass for doing this to you.

Markcheese

How hard would it be to give a Garda a decent digital camera ?? Or is that just stupid talk ??
Pretty sure the go safe vans could do it now...

NotInventedHere

Just get a doctors note and pull a sickie on the court day

slimjimmc

NotInventedHere wrote: »

Just get a doctors note and pull a sickie on the court day

Wouldn't the outcome be either the case will be rescheduled or he'll be convicted in his absence by a (by now) pi55ed off judge? It's hardly going to be dismissed because the defendant is 'sick'.

dr.fuzzenstein

Yeah, something tells me better turn up armed with as much supporting evidence as possible and a good solicitor.

Guy:Incognito

CiniO wrote: »

Oh come on....
Are you advising OP to take consequences of offence he didn't commit, and just use the garda error to ask judge for lower sentence ?

How would you go about proving you werent holding the phone so? The Gard is giving evidence that he sees you, so now you've to come up with proof you weren't. If all a phone could do was make/receive calls, you'd have a stronger case but still no proof the phone wasn't in your hand unless you had video of your journey.

djimi wrote: »

Welcome to Ireland...
.

Ireland eh? How does it work in other countries so? If the police don't film you breaking the law your free to do what you want?

Whats the purpose of a witness ?

mikom

Wanna win this court case?
Banjo, I've a sharp axe and a bottle of whiskey to dull the pain.
Gimme those arms.......... chop chop.

djimi

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ireland eh? How does it work in other countries so? If the police don't film you breaking the law your free to do what you want?

Whats the purpose of a witness ?

I dont know (or care) how it works in other countries. Whatever they may or may not do, I find it utterly farcical that you can be prosecuted on the basis of what someone thinks they saw from yards away through the window of a moving car. There are any number of reasons why the Garda might be mistaken in what they think they saw, but none of that matters as there can be no defense once they decide to be stubborn and stick to their story.

Guy:Incognito

djimi wrote: »

I dont know (or care) how it works in other countries. Whatever they may or may not do, I find it utterly farcical that you can be prosecuted on the basis of what someone thinks they saw from yards away through the window of a moving car. There are any number of reasons why the Garda might be mistaken in what they think they saw, but none of that matters as there can be no defense once they decide to be stubborn and stick to their story.

When you say things like "welcome to Ireland..." , your implying things are different here than elsewhere , so its a valid question.

How do you think it should be handled so? The Gard obviously thinks the op was using his phone. How can he prove it beyond giving evidence as a witness?

CiniO

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How would you go about proving you werent holding the phone so? The Gard is giving evidence that he sees you, so now you've to come up with proof you weren't. If all a phone could do was make/receive calls, you'd have a stronger case but still no proof the phone wasn't in your hand unless you had video of your journey.

I don't know.
Luckily I'm not in such situation.
But admitting a fault once you are not at fault, just because it would be hard to prove to be innocent, is beyond me.
At least try.
In the worst case judge will say you are at fault.

djimi

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How do you think it should be handled so? The Gard obviously thinks the op was using his phone. How can he prove it beyond giving evidence as a witness?

They cant, thats the point. Its not a clear cut situation (like say the Garda seeing someone breaking a red light); there is far too much room for misinterpretation of what has been seen. There are any number of things that could be seen as someone holding/using a phone from a distance through the window of a moving car; a Gardas word alone is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond doubt.

Guy:Incognito

djimi wrote: »

They cant, thats the point. Its not a clear cut situation (like say the Garda seeing someone breaking a red light); there is far too much room for misinterpretation of what has been seen. There are any number of things that could be seen as someone holding/using a phone from a distance through the window of a moving car; a Gardas word alone is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond doubt.

The Gard obviously thinks he knows what he saw, so believes it is clear cut. From the judges and a legal standpoint whats the difference between what happened to the op and if the Gard was alone in an alley and the Op drove up to him laughing and waving his phone at him showing the Gard he was using it but then goes to court and lies saying he did no such thing? Should the OP be let off in the 2nd scenario too?

CiniO

OP could always say he was holding one of the phones from this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYCrDDiRv1I

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

They cant, thats the point. Its not a clear cut situation (like say the Garda seeing someone breaking a red light); there is far too much room for misinterpretation of what has been seen. There are any number of things that could be seen as someone holding/using a phone from a distance through the window of a moving car; a Gardas word alone is not sufficient to prove guilt beyond doubt.

Yes, I agree with you, but all law systems need a stop point. And in Ireland its 'guardians of the peace' those considered infallible in the eyes of the law e.g. Gardai, Judges etc. Yes, you have a few corrupt eggs in every basket but it would be practically impossible to police phone usage beyond a Garda's word. People have suggested digital cameras, are they suggesting Gardai photograph people then prosecute? An impossible and completely impractical suggestion.

Granted in-car cameras on the Gardai's side have allowed for this but there is nothing more the law system can do, I believe, other than a Garda's word against yours. If someone is so concerned that a Garda will attempt to 'do them' unjustly, get a DVR that is rear facing.

And anyway, its well established that mobile phone usage is illegal whilst driving so the only couple of options left are: 1) You were using it and are whining about being caught 2) The Garda was on a power trip or 3) The Garda made a genuine mistake. Two of which can be easily solved for under €100 by buying a DVR i.e. Less than the cost of going to court (If one is so concerned about being unjustly prosecuted)

Solution? Buy a DVR or trust a Garda's judgement.

mikom

CiniO wrote: »

I don't know.
Luckily I'm not in such situation.
But admitting a fault once you are not at fault, just because it would be hard to prove to be innocent, is beyond me.

Try explaining that to a child you are trying to teach morals to.
He'll be looking differently at the next guard he sees.

Banjo String

Just studied the Summons here, never had one before in my life so pardon the ignorance.

The Gards name is on it, and his Garda station. Does anyone think it's worth my while to contact him before the case ref the misspelt name and me attempting to pay, or am I better turning up, and explaining to the judge?

djimi

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The Gard obviously thinks he knows what he saw, so believes it is clear cut. From the judges and a legal standpoint whats the difference between what happened to the op and if the Gard was alone in an alley and the Op drove up to him laughing and waving his phone at him showing the Gard he was using it but then goes to court and lies saying he did no such thing? Should the OP be let off in the 2nd scenario too?

But therein lies the problem; the Garda thinks that he knows what he saw.

In most cases I have no issue with the Garda's word being taken as evidence, as in most cases its fairly clear cut. But in this case, what the Garda thinks that they saw happened through the window of a moving car, most likely at some distance, so it is nowhere near as clear cut as most eye witness accounts. They saw what they thought to be someone holding/using a phone, whereas if I turned around and said that I was actually scratching my ear, there is no way at all that they could prove otherwise. This is my issue with the situation.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Red Crow

Banjo String wrote: »

Just studied the Summons here, never had one before in my life so pardon the ignorance.

The Gards name is on it, and his Garda station. Does anyone think it's worth my while to contact him before the case ref the misspelt name and me attempting to pay, or am I better turning up, and explaining to the judge?

Go to a solicitor.

Banjo String

Red Crow wrote: »

Go to a solicitor.

Dont need the expense tbh.

I would be liable for a solicitor bill I presume?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Banjo String

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, that'd Prob be twice the amount of the 90€ I was unable to pay to begin with so Shag that.

Stavros Murphy

Banjo String wrote: »

Dont need the expense tbh.

I would be liable for a solicitor bill I presume?

I'd get one. It always ends better when you have a solicitor, even if it means you only get 5 years instead of 10.

On a more serious note Banj, get a brief - judges feckin hate people representing themselves and it only costs €50 to have one stand up in court and say your bit for you. You'll end up rowing with the judge, calling the Gard a blind eejit and be banged up for contempt of court. From personal experience, a solicitor usually ends up costing less than they save you.
And if anyone asks, I'm at work, not off skiving looking at the internet..

blackis200

It's up to the court.
Attempting to pay is an admission of guilt.

It's a boring day for the judge.
You have to defend yourself now. Maybe the Garda will not show.

Banjo String

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

I'd get one. It always ends better when you have a solicitor, even if it means you only get 5 years instead of 10.

On a more serious note Banj, get a brief - judges feckin hate people representing themselves and it only costs €50 to have one stand up in court and say your bit for you. You'll end up rowing with the judge, calling the Gard a blind eejit and be banged up for contempt of court. From personal experience, a solicitor usually ends up costing less than they save you.
And if anyone asks, I'm at work, not off skiving looking at the internet..

You know me too well :pac:

Banjo String

blackis200 wrote: »

It's up to the court.
Attempting to pay is an admission of guilt.

It's a boring day for the judge.
You have to defend yourself now. Maybe the Garda will not show.

I dunno, I could go down the route of saying I wanted to pay rather than have the cost of a days pay which would be greater than the fine. I cannot have points placed on my license (Northern one)

I think I may follow the suggestion of seeking a briefs opinion on this one. Catch 22 tbh.

IITYWYBMAD

CiniO wrote: »

OP could always say he was holding one of the phones from this video:

Driving without due care.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Total bulls**t.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

TheDriver

how long do we have to wait to see how this turns out??

CiniO

IITYWYBMAD wrote: »

Driving without due care.

Eating a cookie while driving is "driving without due care" ?

Banjo String

TheDriver wrote: »

how long do we have to wait to see how this turns out??

Not gonna give the specific date. But June.

Kimbot

djimi wrote: »

But therein lies the problem; the Garda thinks that he knows what he saw.

In most cases I have no issue with the Garda's word being taken as evidence, as in most cases its fairly clear cut. But in this case, what the Garda thinks that they saw happened through the window of a moving car, most likely at some distance, so it is nowhere near as clear cut as most eye witness accounts. They saw what they thought to be someone holding/using a phone, whereas if I turned around and said that I was actually scratching my ear, there is no way at all that they could prove otherwise. This is my issue with the situation.

I posted on the forum before where I was scratching my ear in the car and a guard pulled me in telling me I was using my mobile even tho both my phones were in the glove box and connected to my bluetooth handsfree kit with no record of incoming or outgoing calls at the time in question. After much arguing and showing him the medication I just collected from the chemist to clear an ear infection he eventually gave up and believed me and went on his merry little way.

OP i would fight this all the way.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.