Go Safe Photo of Driver

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

vibe666 wrote: »

presumably the gardai can provide a photo of the face of the driver, but if they can't, i don't see how a judge can convict anyone.

For goodness sake, you posted the law yourself. The judge will apply the law, that's his job. The owner gets the fine and points.

The only judge who could do anything else is a judge in the Supreme Court if you challenged the constitutionality of the law. Nobody will do that over a feckin speeding fine!

I think there is a good chance that the law is constitutional in any case. It is not unjust to say that as the owner, you are responsible for how the car is used. Don't want to collect speeding points? Don't lend your car to any speeders.

corktina

What happens if you nominate another driver and they prove they were elsewhere?

vibe666

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

For goodness sake, you posted the law yourself. The judge will apply the law, that's his job. The owner gets the fine and points.

you're talking about *your interpretation* of the law. unless you can show me precedent in case law that shows this is in fact the case, you are talking pure conjecture just like the rest of us.

I hate to break it to you, but a judge will be applying his interpretation of the law, not yours.

until and unless this goes in front of a judge, none of us have any idea what a specific judges interpretation of the law will be or specifically what to do in this case when presented with all the facts.

unless you have evidence to the contrary?

Zubeneschamali

vibe666 wrote: »

you're talking about *your interpretation* of the law. unless you can show me precedent in case law that shows this is in fact the case, you are talking pure conjecture just like the rest of us.

Ah, I thought you were arguing that the clear meaning of the law is unjust, and that the courts might not enforce it.

But actually, you think the meaning of the law is unclear. Fair enough. You might want to consult a legal professional before betting on that, though, since it is as black-and-white clear as any law I've ever seen:

in a prosecution of that owner or another person for the alleged offence, which is a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that—

(i) where the registered owner is an individual, he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle

I don't see any ambiguity there.

vibe666

it's not about ambiguity, it's about what constitutes sufficient contrary evidence indicating a persons innocence.

two months ago a judge dismissed a speeding case because even though there WAS evidence of an offence, there was no record that the the photographic evidence itself had been provided to the keeper of the vehicle prior to the court appearance.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/speeding-summons-cases-may-be-affected-by-high-court-ruling-1.1863154

by YOUR interpretation of the law, the defendant here would have been convicted without question, when in fact even though there was photographic evidence of the offence occurring, simply because it hadn't been presented to the accused before the trial, the case was dismissed and has now set a precedent that may result in a large number of other similar cases being dismissed on the same grounds.

This is also very relevant to the OP, since he has actually asked for photographic evidence to clarify who was driving at the time of the offence. as I already stated, unless this can be provided prior to a court appearance, I seriously doubt there could be a safe conviction handed down on the day.

Zubeneschamali

vibe666 wrote: »

it's not about ambiguity, it's about what constitutes sufficient contrary evidence indicating a persons innocence.

Up to the judge on the day, but no different in that respect than any other evidence. It's always up to the judge on the day.

Sometimes the judge will take a liking to a defendant, especially a well dressed one with lawyers, and let them away with mad stuff, or maybe just tell them to donate to the poor-box. Other times they'll take a dislike to a particular Garda, and dismiss cases all over the place.

So it is always possible that a judge on the day might accept the sworn testimony of an upstanding citizen to the effect that they were elsewhere on the day in question. I wouldn't bet that way myself, though, since it's double points after a court appearance. And the OP can't even swear he wasn't the one driving...

Zubeneschamali

vibe666 wrote: »

I seriously doubt there could be a safe conviction handed down on the day.

But the OP admits driving on that day! How can they prove it wasn't them exactly?

They can't even tell us it wasn't them, never mind a judge.

Henry Ford III

vibe666 wrote: »

it's not about ambiguity, it's about what constitutes sufficient contrary evidence indicating a persons innocence.

two months ago a judge dismissed a speeding case because even though there WAS evidence of an offence, there was no record that the the photographic evidence itself had been provided to the keeper of the vehicle prior to the court appearance.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/speeding-summons-cases-may-be-affected-by-high-court-ruling-1.1863154

.....

Indeed but that's a red herring in relation to what's being discussed.

vibe666

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But the OP admits driving on that day! How can they prove it wasn't them exactly?

They can't even tell us it wasn't them, never mind a judge.

that is EXACTLY the point. right now, with no further evidence, nobody can say who was driving, or who wasn't and a judge can't just point the finger when he has testimony casting significant doubt over the guilt of the keeper of the vehicle that he was the one who committed the offence.

the judge will have testimony from three people who were driving on that day none of whom can say with any degree of certainty who was driving when the offence was recorded.

with the evidence provided (assuming no photo of the drivers face surfaces prior to the day), the judge has evidence that the offence was committed, but only a 33% probability that the keeper was the driver of the car at the time of the offence.

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Indeed but that's a red herring in relation to what's being discussed.

not at all. several people seem to think that if a photo of your car speeding is captured that is the end of it and that you will be given points and a fine unless you can prove you weren't driving and nominate the person that was, when this is clearly not the case and and even a trivial technicality can get a speeding case dismissed despite there being clear evidence that the keeper committed that offence and they don't even bother to deny their guilt.

if a speeding case can be thrown out (and potentially many more as a result of that) by a judge because the gardai *might* not have included a photo of the offence to the person caught speeding prior to the court date and that the gardai simply couldn't prove that they did send an image even though they thought they had and usually would, it is very relevant to the thread since the accused in that case was able to shift the burden of proof back onto the gardai to the point where even though there was clear evidence of his guilt by any measurable standards the case was dismissed.

the above case p1sses all over any notions that the law in regards to speeding offences is cut and dry and that once they have a picture of your car speeding, that either a nominated driver or failing that yourself is definitely going to be convicted and get points.

if the OP walks into court with the other people who were driving and explains that none of them knows who was driving at the time of the alleged offence and that they have not been provided with the evidence required to ascertain the guilty party, the judge can't just pick one at random with a 66% probability that he would be convicting someone innocent of the offence.

at a time in ireland when significant numbers of speeding fines are being thrown out of court for trivial reasons and the entire speeding fine system in this country has been labelled as "bureaucracy gone mad" by a judge, it's really not much of a stretch that a speeding fine could be thrown out if there is no way to ascertain who was driving on the day in question.

Henry Ford III

vibe666 wrote: »

that is EXACTLY the point. right now, with no further evidence, nobody can say who was driving, or who wasn't and a judge can't just point the finger when he has testimony casting significant doubt over the guilt of the keeper of the vehicle that he was the one who committed the offence.

the judge will have testimony from three people who were driving on that day none of whom can say with any degree of certainty who was driving when the offence was recorded.

with the evidence provided (assuming no photo of the drivers face surfaces prior to the day), the judge has evidence that the offence was committed, but only a 33% probability that the keeper was the driver of the car at the time of the offence.



not at all. several people seem to think that if a photo of your car speeding is captured that is the end of it and that you will be given points and a fine unless you can prove you weren't driving and nominate the person that was, when this is clearly not the case and and even a trivial technicality can get a speeding case dismissed despite there being clear evidence that the keeper committed that offence and they don't even bother to deny their guilt.

if a speeding case can be thrown out (and potentially many more as a result of that) by a judge because the gardai *might* not have included a photo of the offence to the person caught speeding prior to the court date and that the gardai simply couldn't prove that they did send an image even though they thought they had and usually would, it is very relevant to the thread since the accused in that case was able to shift the burden of proof back onto the gardai to the point where even though there was clear evidence of his guilt by any measurable standards the case was dismissed.

the above case p1sses all over any notions that the law in regards to speeding offences is cut and dry and that once they have a picture of your car speeding, that either a nominated driver or failing that yourself is definitely going to be convicted and get points.

if the OP walks into court with the other people who were driving and explains that none of them knows who was driving at the time of the alleged offence and that they have not been provided with the evidence required to ascertain the guilty party, the judge can't just pick one at random with a 66% probability that he would be convicting someone innocent of the offence.

at a time in ireland when significant numbers of speeding fines are being thrown out of court for trivial reasons and the entire speeding fine system in this country has been labelled as "bureaucracy gone mad" by a judge, it's really not much of a stretch that a speeding fine could be thrown out if there is no way to ascertain who was driving on the day in question.

Sigh.

There's no benefit in people like us on the internet trying to second guess what a judge might or might not do. They can be quite unpredictable.

The evidential paper trail is one thing, and where that's been successfuly challenged it's all well and good.

The "3 possible drivers" case isn't necessarily affected. Whilst the chances of someone getting a fine and points are against the owner/keeper that's exactly what the legislation assumes. In other words - someone was speeding in your car. Produce the driver if it wasn't you, or else it's assumed it was you.

Whatever about the chances of a 33% incorrect conviction, if there's no doubt the offence took place the issuing of fine/points is 100% correct.

Just my understanding of it.

dr.fuzzenstein

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Sigh.

There's no benefit in people like us on the internet trying to second guess what a judge might or might not do. They can be quite unpredictable.

The evidential paper trail is one thing, and where that's been successfuly challenged it's all well and good.

The "3 possible drivers" case isn't necessarily affected. Whilst the chances of someone getting a fine and points are against the owner/keeper that's exactly what the legislation assumes. In other words - someone was speeding in your car. Produce the driver if it wasn't you, or else it's assumed it was you.

Whatever about the chances of a 33% incorrect conviction, if there's no doubt the offence took place the issuing of fine/points is 100% correct.

Just my understanding of it.

That.
People have vehemently and passionately (to the point of getting themselves banned) argued with absolute 100% certainty that they where right and the other side was wrong.
In the end no-one can be certain.

Zubeneschamali

vibe666 wrote: »

that is EXACTLY the point. right now, with no further evidence, nobody can say who was driving, or who wasn't and a judge can't just point the finger when he has testimony casting significant doubt over the guilt of the keeper of the vehicle that he was the one who committed the offence.

Unless the OP can show he was not driving, neither the law nor the judge care who was actually driving. It doesn't matter. As owner, he gets the points and fine, because it is his vehicle.

The law pins the guilt on the owner, not the judge.

vibe666

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That.
People have vehemently and passionately (to the point of getting themselves banned) argued with absolute 100% certainty that they where right and the other side was wrong.
In the end no-one can be certain.

and I think we can probably let the thread rest at that until the OP tells us if they intend to go to court and then lets us know what happens.

if it was me personally, i'd definitely be going to court over it if nobody provides an image of the drivers face, but other people would evidently just prefer to grease up and bend over.

Zubeneschamali

vibe666 wrote: »

if it was me personally, i'd definitely be going to court over it i

I'd consider a few bob on legal advice well spent first.

dr.fuzzenstein

vibe666 wrote: »

and I think we can probably let the thread rest at that until the OP tells us if they intend to go to court and then lets us know what happens.

if it was me personally, i'd definitely be going to court over it if nobody provides an image of the drivers face, but other people would evidently just prefer to grease up and bend over.

That's the way the law works in Ireland.
If you are being done over as is usual and you think it is unfair, you can challenge the might of the state.
All you need is several solicitors and barristers as well as deep pockets to the tune of a few hundred thousand or more.
In Germany you can bring a Verfassungsklage (constitutional challenge) and it costs exactly zero.
So in Ireland you can say the state protects itself from plebs who dare to challenge the status quo by putting up a wall of completely unreasonable and probably illegal barricades in way of fees that will ruin anyone who dares to complain.
That is the difference between a banana republic and a proper country.
We the people my arse.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dr.fuzzenstein

^^^^
Damn, beat me to it.
Bet you in Ireland they would still try to stick it on him.

Spook_ie

Apparently in the UK if you say you don't know who was driving you can get the maximum points for the offence

http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/know-who-is-driving-your-car.html

Many people are unaware that the keeper (not the driver) is ultimately liable for paying parking, congestion charge and some moving traffic offence penalties, regardless of whether they were driving.

Pro Hoc Vice

vibe666 wrote: »

it's not about ambiguity, it's about what constitutes sufficient contrary evidence indicating a persons innocence.

two months ago a judge dismissed a speeding case because even though there WAS evidence of an offence, there was no record that the the photographic evidence itself had been provided to the keeper of the vehicle prior to the court appearance.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/speeding-summons-cases-may-be-affected-by-high-court-ruling-1.1863154

by YOUR interpretation of the law, the defendant here would have been convicted without question, when in fact even though there was photographic evidence of the offence occurring, simply because it hadn't been presented to the accused before the trial, the case was dismissed and has now set a precedent that may result in a large number of other similar cases being dismissed on the same grounds.

This is also very relevant to the OP, since he has actually asked for photographic evidence to clarify who was driving at the time of the offence. as I already stated, unless this can be provided prior to a court appearance, I seriously doubt there could be a safe conviction handed down on the day.

The photo only needs to be of the car not the driver, number plate is provided on the letter.

dr.fuzzenstein

Spook_ie wrote: »

Apparently in the UK if you say you don't know who was driving you can get the maximum points for the offence

http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/know-who-is-driving-your-car.html

I think in the UK as far as the law is concerned, motorists rank somewhat lower than rapists and child murderers.

Quazzie

Let it go to court. The prosecution then has to prove it was you, or someone else driving the car. If they can't then no charges will be given as you will have sworn under oath that you are unsure about who was driving. They cannot convict where there is reasonable doubt.

Pro Hoc Vice

Quazzie wrote: »

Let it go to court. The prosecution then has to prove it was you, or someone else driving the car. If they can't then no charges will be given as you will have sworn under oath that you are unsure about who was driving. They cannot convict where there is reasonable doubt.

There is a legal presumption that the registered owner was driving but the driver can rebut that presumption in evidence.

Once AGS prove that the car was speeding then the presumption arises, such presumptions are constitutional and used in road traffic cases.

There is of course a chance that the Judge will accept the defense but remember the point on fixed penalty notice is 3 on conviction in court its 5 plus the cost of a solicitor and appeal if necessary. Its the OP's choice.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Quazzie wrote: »

The prosecution then has to prove it was you, or someone else driving the car. If they can't then no charges will be given as you will have sworn under oath that you are unsure about who was driving. They cannot convict where there is reasonable doubt.

You are categorically wrong. The actual words of the law were posted upthread.

The owner of the car is responsible, and gets the fines and points unless they can prove they were not driving at the time. If the OP swears under oath that they are unsure about who was driving, they are admitting guilt.

Unless he can get a photo from the speed camera showing that he is not the driver, the OP is getting the fine and points. If he goes to court, he's getting double points.

Henry Ford III

I'm still unconvinced this "it wasn't me" argument is sufficient. The way I'd see it is produce the offending driver, or incur the penaties.

ironclaw

So, am I right in saying, if you had a relative who worked abroad but held an Irish license, they were the registered owner and the car was snapped speeding, a legitimate defense is they didn't know who was driving? And as they were outside the country at the time its obviously they were not, then no conviction can be secured?

Seems a bit easy if you ask me given the amount of people currently working and living abroad.

dr.fuzzenstein

ironclaw wrote: »

So, am I right in saying, if you had a relative who worked abroad but held an Irish license, they were the registered owner and the car was snapped speeding, a legitimate defense is they didn't know who was driving? And as they were outside the country at the time its obviously they were not, then no conviction can be secured?

Seems a bit easy if you ask me given the amount of people currently working and living abroad.

I would say it is one thing to land someone with points and fine if they simply state they weren't driving, but can't disprove it or say who was driving, but it is quite another thing to land someone with points and fine who can clearly prove they where not driving and could not have been driving.
That may just go a bit too far.
Imagine if someone stole your car and committed 28 separate offenses in it, would you think it is fair that you should lose your license over it?
And why would you land people abroad with points and fine anyway?

Zubeneschamali

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

That may just go a bit too far.
And why would you land people abroad with points and fine anyway?

As the law is written, if the owner can prove they were not driving to the judges satisfaction, they will not be convicted. Obviously, being provably in Australia would do it.

Why would you stick someone abroad with points? Hypothetically, if my brother is in Australia and likely to stay there for four years, points can't hurt him. They'll have expired before he gets back.

joujoujou

Would they send Fixed Penalty Notice to OZ?

Just curious.

Henry Ford III

Again it's arguable. Consider the following theoretical courtroom exchange...

Registered owner: I wasn't driving at the time of the alleged offence judge, I was on holidays in France at the time, and here are docs to prove it.

Judge: Fair enough. Who was driving and speeding in your car though?

R.O. : No idea Judge. Could have been a few people.

Judge: You get to take the increased fine and points. Next case!

bigboss1986

RootX wrote: »

Does any of the drivers hold a foreign license? If yes, nominate him and split the fine

There is similar process of ''selling'' penalty points in Poland.In Poland you have 24 points for 12 months.But you can get cumulative penalty for 2 offences( eg. speeding+seat belts etc).So police gives you on the spot 15 points.2 weeks later you got caught by speed camera.Another 10 points.So total 25=BAN.There is special forum where people who have driving licence but not driving selling their details to get penalty points :rolleyes:
Offender gives trader details to cops but trader was paid let say 200€ for it.
Thousand people avoiding points that way.Naming someone else.

Also there is an option to pay higher penalty for being caught on speed camera but no points.Modern way of corruption :eek:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ironclaw

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

I would say it is one thing to land someone with points and fine if they simply state they weren't driving, but can't disprove it or say who was driving, but it is quite another thing to land someone with points and fine who can clearly prove they where not driving and could not have been driving.
That may just go a bit too far.
Imagine if someone stole your car and committed 28 separate offenses in it, would you think it is fair that you should lose your license over it?
And why would you land people abroad with points and fine anyway?

I completely agree with your logic fuzz, no argument.

Going a step further, can a business own a vehicle? Because then, if the director can prove they were not driving, it goes no where again. You simple appoint a director that is never in the country.

I just think we're missing something here as this seems way, way too easy to get away with

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Registered owner: I wasn't driving at the time of the alleged offence judge, I was on holidays in France at the time, and here are docs to prove it.

Judge: Fair enough. Who was driving and speeding in your car though?

R.O. : No idea Judge. Could have been a few people.

Judge: You get to take the increased fine and points. Next case!

I suppose the judge could say that, but that isn't what the law says, so I think it is unlikely.

Henry Ford III

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I suppose the judge could say that, but that isn't what the law says, so I think it is unlikely.

I thought that was exactly what the law did say. Registered owner is responsible if the offending driver doesn't come forward.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Henry Ford III wrote: »

I thought that was exactly what the law did say. Registered owner is responsible if the offending driver doesn't come forward.

No, what it says is:

in a prosecution of that owner or another person for the alleged offence, which is a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that—

(i) where the registered owner is an individual, he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle

So if you "show to the contrary", that is, prove you were not driving, you're good.

The normal method is to say who was driving. But if you were in jail, in hospital or in Australia, you cannot have been driving.

In the case of a company car, the wording is explicitly different:

(ii) where the registered owner is a body corporate or unincorporated body of persons or has hired out under a hire-drive agreement or leased the vehicle—

(I) the person permitted under an approved policy of insurance or under an agreement, as the case may be, to drive the vehicle was driving or otherwise using the vehicle, or

(II) in the event of being unable to ascertain the identity of that person, the registered owner is deemed to have been driving or otherwise using the vehicle,

So for a company car, there is a specific clause that says if you can't identify the driver, the owner gets hit, but for a private car, that wording is not there. The owner only gets hit if he/she can't show they weren't driving.

Henry Ford III

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They might indeed, but very few people can afford to go ask them decide.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

blackwhite

ironclaw wrote: »

I completely agree with your logic fuzz, no argument.

Going a step further, can a business own a vehicle? Because then, if the director can prove they were not driving, it goes no where again. You simple appoint a director that is never in the country.

I just think we're missing something here as this seems way, way too easy to get away with

A business can own a vehicle, as anyone with a company car can attest to.

A director claiming, under oath, that they cannot identify who was driving a company car will leave themselves open to much worse than a fine and some points. i.e. a potential investigation from the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, and a possible prosecution for breach of their fiduciary duties.

The directors are legally responsible for ensuring the safekeeping of the assets of the company. If they admit under oath to failing in their legal duties, then it's quite likely that a pissed-off judge/guard will make a complaint to the ODCE.

Henry Ford III

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, what it says is:

in a prosecution of that owner or another person for the alleged offence, which is a penalty point offence, to which the notice under section 35 (1)(b) relates, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that—

(i) where the registered owner is an individual, he or she was driving or otherwise using the vehicle

So if you "show to the contrary", that is, prove you were not driving, you're good.

The normal method is to say who was driving. But if you were in jail, in hospital or in Australia, you cannot have been driving.

In the case of a company car, the wording is explicitly different:

(ii) where the registered owner is a body corporate or unincorporated body of persons or has hired out under a hire-drive agreement or leased the vehicle—

(I) the person permitted under an approved policy of insurance or under an agreement, as the case may be, to drive the vehicle was driving or otherwise using the vehicle, or

(II) in the event of being unable to ascertain the identity of that person, the registered owner is deemed to have been driving or otherwise using the vehicle,

So for a company car, there is a specific clause that says if you can't identify the driver, the owner gets hit, but for a private car, that wording is not there. The owner only gets hit if he/she can't show they weren't driving.

I guess that's one interpretation of it.

Pro Hoc Vice

blackwhite wrote: »

A business can own a vehicle, as anyone with a company car can attest to.

A director claiming, under oath, that they cannot identify who was driving a company car will leave themselves open to much worse than a fine and some points. i.e. a potential investigation from the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, and a possible prosecution for breach of their fiduciary duties.

The directors are legally responsible for ensuring the safekeeping of the assets of the company. If they admit under oath to failing in their legal duties, then it's quite likely that a pissed-off judge/guard will make a complaint to the ODCE.

Can you point to one example where that happened.

Quazzie

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If the OP swears under oath that they are unsure about who was driving, they are admitting guilt.

How in any definition of the English language is that "admitting guilt" :rolleyes:

CiniO

bigboss1986 wrote: »

There is similar process of ''selling'' penalty points in Poland.In Poland you have 24 points for 12 months.But you can get cumulative penalty for 2 offences( eg. speeding+seat belts etc).So police gives you on the spot 15 points.2 weeks later you got caught by speed camera.Another 10 points.So total 25=BAN.There is special forum where people who have driving licence but not driving selling their details to get penalty points :rolleyes:
Offender gives trader details to cops but trader was paid let say 200€ for it.
Thousand people avoiding points that way.Naming someone else.

Also there is an option to pay higher penalty for being caught on speed camera but no points.Modern way of corruption :eek:

Over 24 points doesn't mean automatic BAN.
They just ask you to pass the driving test again instead. Only if you fail it, you will be banned, until you pass it.

Zubeneschamali

Quazzie wrote: »

How in any definition of the English language is that "admitting guilt" :rolleyes:

If your car is speeding and you can't prove you were not driving, you are guilty.

"I swear I don't know who was driving, maybe me, maybe one of these other guys".

You just swore that you can't prove you were not driving: guilty.

Quazzie

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If your car is speeding and you can't prove you were not driving, you are guilty.

"I swear I don't know who was driving, maybe me, maybe one of these other guys".

You just swore that you can't prove you were not driving: guilty.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Surely there is an emphasis on proven guilt rather than proven innocence.

pa990

Plenty of keyboard warriors here offering their interpretation of the law.

How many have real world experience of how this matter will actually play out on court ?

The reality is, whether you like it or not, is that the registered keeper is responsible for the vehicle, whether that be parking tickets, speeding tickets, no tax tickets* (*where the car was unattended at the time)

Unless the registered owner can nominate another person.

Everyone here can argue all they want, but remember, legislation may be worded in such a way that is ordinary language meaning, and legal meaning may differ.

Ie, may, shall, must , should.

The judge will have the final say on the day in court, and it's not like TV, speeding cases are dealt with swiftly.

Q, are u the registered keeper
A, Yes
Q, 4points €160

Quazzie

pa990 wrote: »

Plenty of keyboard warriors here offering their interpretation of the law.

How many have real world experience of how this matter will actually play out on court ?

The reality is, whether you like it or not, is that the registered keeper is responsible for the vehicle, whether that be parking tickets, speeding tickets, no tax tickets* (*where the car was unattended at the time)

Unless the registered owner can nominate another person.

Everyone here can argue all they want, but remember, legislation may be worded in such a way that is ordinary language meaning, and legal meaning may differ.

Ie, may, shall, must , should.

The judge will have the final say on the day in court, and it's not like TV, speeding cases are dealt with swiftly.

Q, are u the registered keeper
A, Yes
Q, 4points €160

As someone who has been in court over an unpaid speeding fine, I think it'll blow your mind to hear I received no fine, and no points.

So it's not quite as straight forward as you like to put forward.