Speeding Fine Question

pippip

Sure the op can just claim someone must have cloned his number plate on an identical vehicle.

djimi

challengemaster wrote: »

This has already all been clarified. Yes, unless the owner of the vehicle can prove otherwise he is assumed to have been driving.

HOWEVER, the OP already said many times he has proof he wasn't driving.

You see, the problem that the OP faces with this scenario is that they will go to court and prove that they were not driving the car. The court will then ask why they hadnt reported the car as stolen when it was driven by someone who did not have permission to drive the car. Not reporting it as stolen doesnt do a whole lot to persuade anyone that they do not know who was driving the car.

If the OP goes to court and states that the car was taken without their consent, it opens the driver up a lot of legal issues if/when they are identified. Leaving aside the possible charge of theft, the driver was also driving the car uninsured (unless they are a named driver on the policy), as third party extension or open driving both specify that the policy holders permission must be granted for the car to be driven. The OP going to court and stating that they do not know who was driving the car will put it on record that no consent was given.

challengemaster

djimi wrote: »

You see, the problem that the OP faces with this scenario is that they will go to court and prove that they were not driving the car. The court will then ask why they hadnt reported the car as stolen when it was driven by someone who did not have permission to drive the car. Not reporting it as stolen doesnt do a whole lot to persuade anyone that they do not know who was driving the car.

The OP didn't know the car was being used until he received the penalty notice - how could he report it stolen when for all he knew it was still parked where he left it?

He's proven his innocence at that point. What happens after isn't clearly in the legislation. The judge may just throw out the case after receiving proof it wasn't the OP driving.

Henry Ford III

challengemaster wrote:

Learn to read. Then try again.

It's crystal clear to me at least

djimi

challengemaster wrote: »

The OP didn't know the car was being used until he received the penalty notice - how could he report it stolen when for all he knew it was still parked where he left it?

He's proven his innocence at that point. What happens after isn't clearly in the legislation. The judge may just throw out the case after receiving proof it wasn't the OP driving.

Upon receiving the notice, he knew the car was in use without his consent. If you genuinely had no idea who was driving your car when there was definitive proof that somebody was, would you not want to report it and find out what happened?

challengemaster

djimi wrote: »

Upon receiving the notice, he knew the car was in use without his consent. If you genuinely had no idea who was driving your car when there was definitive proof that somebody was, would you not want to report it and find out what happened?

Upon receiving it, yes. When in relation to the event was that, though? Weeks later? The car is not currently missing or stolen. The gardaí barely investigate actual stolen and currently missing vehicles, they're not going to bother with one that isn't missing. They'll more than likely say it's a family matter to sort out.

The notice is in relation to the OP being accused of speeding at X time and date, at X place. He has proof to the contrary that it was not him - he can't be charged for that offence.

It's up to the gardaí to determine who actually committed the offence.

djimi

challengemaster wrote: »

Upon receiving it, yes. When in relation to the event was that, though? Weeks later? The car is not currently missing or stolen. The gardaí barely investigate actual stolen and currently missing vehicles, they're not going to bother with one that isn't missing. They'll more than likely say it's a family matter to sort out.

The notice is in relation to the OP being accused of speeding at X time and date, at X place. He has proof to the contrary that it was not him - he can't be charged for that offence.

It's up to the gardaí to determine who actually committed the offence.

Yes, they will say its a family matter and sort it out, ie find out which of your family members borrowed your car or else take the points themselves.

What Im getting at is the courts are not stupid; they are going to know that its extremely unlikely that the OP had absolutely no idea who was driving the car (ie it almost certainly wasnt somebody who wandered in off the street and then brought the car back afterwards), and considering the car has not been reported stolen, the OP knows full well who might have taken the car. Its not up to the courts or the Gardai to find out exactly who, but if its a case of determing which of probably three or four likely candidates it is, I doubt the offense will go away and the OP will be asked to figure out who it was.

Just my opinion, but I cant see "sorry your honor, it was one of my brothers but they are being mean and wont tell me who" getting too far as a defense.

challengemaster

djimi wrote: »

Yes, they will say its a family matter and sort it out, ie find out which of your family members borrowed your car or else take the points themselves.

The gardaí can make that threat all they like because they're too lazy to investigate, but legislation doesn't allow for that. Once the OP has proven they were not driving, they cannot be prosecuted for it. That's exactly what it says.

What Im getting at is the courts are not stupid; they are going to know that its extremely unlikely that the OP had absolutely no idea who was driving the car (ie it almost certainly wasnt somebody who wandered in off the street and then brought the car back afterwards), and considering the car has not been reported stolen, the OP knows full well who might have taken the car. Its not up to the courts or the Gardai to find out exactly who, but if its a case of determing which of probably three or four likely candidates it is, I doubt the offense will go away and the OP will be asked to figure out who it was.

Just my opinion, but I cant see "sorry your honor, it was one of my brothers but they are being mean and wont tell me who" getting too far as a defense.

I think you will find it's exactly the job of the gardaí to figure out who was driving.

And while that won't fly as a defence - certain proof the OP wasn't driving is all he needs. The court cannot prove otherwise that the OP did not know who took the vehicle.

djimi

Okay, Im not going to debate this further as Im not a legal professional; as I said in my post its just my opinion, based on the information given and my reading of the legislation posted.

CiniO

Henry Ford III wrote: »

It's crystal clear to me at least

Ok. So lets summarise.
You are saying that Op who didn't drive his car at the time when speeding offence was committed, when attending court and presenting evidence proving that he wasn't driving, will hear from judge something like that:
Mr OP. After reviewing evidence I can see you are not guilty of the offence of speeding, but because of the fact that you are not able to tell us who commited that offence, we in the name of the law, will prosecute you for this offence.

I think you can see yourself how ridiculous it sounds.

mikehn

You go to court you get law not justice, my understanding that your car is supposed to be under your control at all times, so either you are driving it or allowing someone else to drive it. If someone is driving it with your permission then you supply the name to the guards and they then see that the correct person gets the points, If the car is taken without your permission then does that not constitute theft and should you then have notified the guards. You should get a solicitors advice as you will get loads of opinions here that might not hold water.

CiniO

mikehn wrote: »

You go to court you get law not justice, my understanding that your car is supposed to be under your control at all times, so either you are driving it or allowing someone else to drive it.

Any law which would support this hypothesis?

Henry Ford III

CiniO wrote: »

Ok. So lets summarise.
You are saying that Op who didn't drive his car at the time when speeding offence was committed, when attending court and presenting evidence proving that he wasn't driving, will hear from judge something like that:
Mr OP. After reviewing evidence I can see you are not guilty of the offence of speeding, but because of the fact that you are not able to tell us who commited that offence, we in the name of the law, will prosecute you for this offence.

I think you can see yourself how ridiculous it sounds.

The jist of it is as follows I reckon:

The owner is responsible for the fine/points unless the can provide details of the actual driver.

It's not sufficient to try to just say "it wasn't me". So there's no question of prosecution for an offence they didn't commit. The key is responsibilty for that offence.

dr.fuzzenstein

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Somebody was speeding, and somebody has to take the rap for it.

Somebody commited a crime and cannot be identified.
Do the Gards arrest some random person and tell them "alright, we'll do you for it"
That sh*t didn't even go down in Nazi Germany.
So I am countering your baseless assertion backed up with exactly fcuk all with more of the same.
Lazy trolling.

visual

The Dagda wrote: »

That's not the way it works.

Only the summonsed person can be tried in court on the day.

If the judge believes the Op's story the case will be dismissed.

The judge can ask the Gardai to investigate who was driving the car but mosy likely won't as there's deadlines for prosecution which may be in play.

In any case, if the fixed charge notice is from a Go-Safe van, and OP decides not to pay, the case might not even make it to court because of the new loophole that arose this week.

As posted eairier in thread the law is simple
either OP accepts points or one of his brother accepts the points now. Once summoned OP would need a better excuse than "it was one of my bothers but don't know which one"

I could see judge making a simple decision and it won't be " ask the garda to investigate if car might have been used without owners consent."

Someone is going to get points and fine they aren't going to disappear

dr.fuzzenstein

Well, we have to wait how this entirely real scenario plays out in the end...

The Dagda

visual wrote: »

As posted eairier in thread the law is simple
either OP accepts points or one of his brother accepts the points now. Once summoned OP would need a better excuse than "it was one of my bothers but don't know which one"

I could see judge making a simple decision and it won't be " ask the garda to investigate if car might have been used without owners consent."

Someone is going to get points and fine they aren't going to disappear

The opportunity to nominate another driver is at the fixed charge notice stage. The OP was not afforded that opportunity.

The only person who can be convicted on the day is the summonsed person. If the OP proves he wasn't driving the case will be dismissed.

biko

Ok everyone, calm down and keep a civil tone.

blackwhite

CiniO wrote: »

Ok. So lets summarise.
You are saying that Op who didn't drive his car at the time when speeding offence was committed, when attending court and presenting evidence proving that he wasn't driving, will hear from judge something like that:
Mr OP. After reviewing evidence I can see you are not guilty of the offence of speeding, but because of the fact that you are not able to tell us who commited that offence, we in the name of the law, will prosecute you for this offence.

I think you can see yourself how ridiculous it sounds.

Instead, he'll leave himself open to a contempt of court action and/or obstructing the course of justice charges instead, if the judge believes that he knows who was driving and is refusing to name them.

sham58107

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Somebody commited a crime and cannot be identified.
Do the Gards arrest some random person and tell them "alright, we'll do you for it"
That sh*t didn't even go down in Nazi Germany.
So I am countering your baseless assertion backed up with exactly fcuk all with more of the same.
Lazy trolling.

Good god these "law" posts are really going off track.
not a random person OP is named as car owner,if he goes to court and tells judge I was in hospital and could not be driving car at time of offence one of my brothers STOLE my keys and took car for a spin is judge really going to say alright lad get well soon dismissed!!

challengemaster

Why does he have to say anything about his brothers?

He can prove he wasn't driving the car at the time - that's all the summons is dealing with. Case dismissed.

djimi

challengemaster wrote: »

Why does he have to say anything about his brothers?

He can prove he wasn't driving the car at the time - that's all the summons is dealing with. Case dismissed.

Have we had any actual proof that its as simple as case dismissed? I find it really hard to believe that the fine just goes away, and while the registered owner might not be the one getting the fine/points, I dont see why questions would not be asked as to who was driving the car at the time? Id be interested to see the outcome of an actual courtcase on the matter.

challengemaster

djimi wrote: »

Have we had any actual proof that its as simple as case dismissed? I find it really hard to believe that the fine just goes away, and while the registered owner might not be the one getting the fine/points, I dont see why questions would not be asked as to who was driving the car at the time? Id be interested to see the outcome of an actual courtcase on the matter.

What about all the other cases that get dismissed / thrown out every day of the year? Do you find it hard to believe that they just go away too?

I understand where you're coming from, but logically it makes no sense. And based on the letter of the law (RTA) there is nothing that says the owner is responsible even when they've proven they were not driving. All it says is - they are presumed to be driving until proven otherwise.

Everyone on here is just guessing at the outcome, be worthwhile asking a bookie for odds at this stage

djimi

challengemaster wrote: »

What about all the other cases that get dismissed / thrown out every day of the year? Do you find it hard to believe that they just go away too?

I understand where you're coming from, but logically it makes no sense. And based on the letter of the law (RTA) there is nothing that says the owner is responsible even when they've proven they were not driving. All it says is - they are presumed to be driving until proven otherwise.

Everyone on here is just guessing at the outcome, be worthwhile asking a bookie for odds at this stage

It depends on what the case is for. In this instance there seems to be no question that somebody was driving the car in excess of the speed limit, and we all know that judges have the power to assess the case as they see fit, so while they might be satisfied that the registered owner was not the driver, I would question whether they would be entirely satisfied that the owner genuinely does not know who was driving. And that is why I am asking are there any actual examples of this sort of case? Because Id be interested to see if the judge actually accepted the defense of "Im sorry I have no clue who was driving my car at the time", or would they question the validity of such a claim.

challengemaster

I'd imagine that a case where the car observed speeding was actually using cloned plates would be a good indicator, no?

The Dagda

challengemaster wrote: »

What about all the other cases that get dismissed / thrown out every day of the year? Do you find it hard to believe that they just go away too?

I understand where you're coming from, but logically it makes no sense. And based on the letter of the law (RTA) there is nothing that says the owner is responsible even when they've proven they were not driving. All it says is - they are presumed to be driving until proven otherwise.

Everyone on here is just guessing at the outcome, be worthwhile asking a bookie for odds at this stage

The OP could get the case dismissed for several reasons;

1. He wasn't driving the car, and has proof he wasn't.
2. He didn't receive the fixed charge notice.
3. The new loophole with photo's having to be presented with the summons.

More driving offence cases get dismissed in court than actually result in convictions.

ironclaw

djimi wrote: »

Because Id be interested to see if the judge actually accepted the defense of "Im sorry I have no clue who was driving my car at the time", or would they question the validity of such a claim.

I'd also be interested in seeing the outcome here. There are a million ways you could prove you were not driving at the time, even if you were. Provided of course you had someone with a tough enough neck to lie to the court, and as our country has shown, we have such people.

Does the fact that driving is a privilege not a right come into it at all? i.e. You are not afforded the 'innocent unless proven guilty' clause as per say capital murder? I remember in another thread there was a very interesting case from the EU Commission I believe as regards the 'innocence' in driving cases as it hinged on rights versus privilege.

I could of course be talking nonsense :pac:

djimi

challengemaster wrote: »

I'd imagine that a case where the car observed speeding was actually using cloned plates would be a good indicator, no?

Is the OP suggesting this? They seem to be happy to accept that it was actually their car.

challengemaster

djimi wrote: »

Is the OP suggesting this? They seem to be happy to accept that it was actually their car.

No, but I'm suggesting that this would be a similar case for this reason - where the owner of the vehicle can prove they were not driving the car at the time of the offence. They also do not know who was driving the vehicle.

If the case gets thrown out at that point, you have a good indication of what's likely...

djimi

challengemaster wrote: »

No, but I'm suggesting that this would be a similar case for this reason - where the owner of the vehicle can prove they were not driving the car at the time of the offence. They also do not know who was driving the vehicle.

If the case gets thrown out at that point, you have a good indication of what's likely...

If the defendant is disputing that its their car. If the OP were to go to court and recount the story as they have done on here, ie not dispute that its their car, then that is what I would be curious to see the outcome of.

Plus wont the court see the full pictures taken by the camera? Its possible that the photos will show beyond doubt the car belongs to the OP.

animaal

I could imagine a judge going either way with this. But I think the most likely outcome would be:

Judge: So the car was speeding. Were you the driver?
OP: No.
Judge: Who was?
OP: I don't know.
Judge: Ah ok, the car was stolen, grand. Did you report the theft to the gardai?
OP: No.
Judge: Right, I don't believe the car was stolen. Guilty.
OP: I'm appealing!
Judge: Very.

The Dagda

animaal wrote: »

I could imagine a judge going either way with this. But I think the most likely outcome would be:

Judge: So the car was speeding. Were you the driver?
OP: No.
Judge: Who was?
OP: I don't know.
Judge: Ah ok, the car was stolen, grand. Did you report the theft to the gardai?
OP: No.
Judge: Right, I don't believe the car was stolen. Guilty.
OP: I'm appealing!
Judge: Very.

It probably should go like that, but it doesn't and won't in this case.

challengemaster

animaal wrote: »

Judge: So the car was speeding. Were you the driver?
OP: No.
Judge: Who was?
OP: I don't know. The car was at home while I was in hospital, as far as I know it didn't move. Here's the proof I couldn't have been driving.
Judge: Dismissed

FYP.

animaal

challengemaster wrote: »

FYP.

Yes, that outcome's very possible (although not what I was suggesting).

Not the same jurisdiction, but here's an interesting article from the UK.

If the judge was to simply dismiss the case, I think he'd make a point of "suggesting" that the gardai investigate the theft.

mikeecho

Wouldn't it be great if the op posted back here after the court date, and gave us the result.

Unfortunately, ppl never seem to give closure.

No Pants

Effects wrote: »

You sound like one of those gumps that has a minor collision and then blocks the road while waiting for the Gardaí to arrive rather than pull off to the side.

You mean like this guy?

sushmita wrote: »

Hi all,

Today I had a car accident. I was stopped at the roundbout, giving the way to the cars and waiting for my turn when I was hit behind by another car.
I went out from my car and so did the other driver. He suggested to pull over in a safer place as there's a lot of traffic on the roundabout.
I followed his suggestion, however inside of me I wasn't sure he would follow me. Therefore, from the backside mirror I was prompt enough to read and memorize his registration number, when he suddently took another road and disappear from my sight.
I went to the closest Garda station and I reported it. Later I also called my insurance and made the claim. Both Garda and insurance said that they'll call me (the insurance will call me tomorrow to define the claim in details).
Now I just have to see what happens. I think I did all I could do. I've no injuries, there is a damage on my car, I've no idea about the value. However, it's more for the principle that I want to fight for, you cannot escape like that.
However, I'm worried that if they found the driver, he could say that it wasn't him, that he wasn't there... I don't know if I can manage without any witness. I'm not originally from Ireland, so I don't know how it works here in these situations.
What is your opinion?
Thank you.

Worked out well for him, didn't it? :rolleyes:

Pro Hoc Vice

Henry Ford III wrote: »

That doesn't matter. He either produces the driver or takes the rap.

You really can read legislation can you?

sweetsugar

ironclaw wrote: »

If they were caught by a van, you can request a larger photo and you will probably be able to see who is driving and where. Tie that into times and dates, you should be able to work it out.

Another thing, if they took a pic of the back of your car after you passed the van, then they wouldn't have any pic of who was driving the car, just the no plate.

ironclaw

sweetsugar wrote: »

Another thing, if they took a pic of the back of your car after you passed the van, then they wouldn't have any pic of who was driving the car, just the no plate.

They also wouldn't have a picture if it was night time. Whats the point you are trying to make?

Its your car, owned by you, being driven in a public place. You should know who was driving it e.g. Responsibility of ownership. Ignorance, as I've often said, is not a defense in the eyes of the law. Its like if you get a ticket for non-display of tax in a public place, should you be allowed off because you didn't happen to drive it there that day?

[Not directed at you sweetsugar, just a general comment]

vibe666

OP, how did it go?