Unsigned Summons

pachey200

Hi looking for a spot of advice.

I was stopped at a checkpoint driving a work car that was covered by a motor trade policy which my name is on.
The guard seemed to have never heard of such a thing and asked me to produce the policy within 10 days. At the time I was incredibly busy and was expecting a baby and completely forgot about it.

I recently received a summons by registered post and its completely unsigned I have no issue turning up to court with the policy but just wondering does a summons need to be signed?

Thanks

4ensic15

Holding up a summons in court saying it is not signed is a sure way to get into the manure. Not going at all is equally sure.
You should contact the prosecuting guard before the hearing and show the insurance. Do not wait till it is called in court. Go to court and wait till the matter is called and ensure the guard has seen the insurance cert again.

Lmklad

When a summons is issued there are three identical copies of the summons produced, one for you, one for the guard and one for the court. The guard doesn't sign your copy. He/she signs the copy which is handed into the court office which proves service.

GM228

The Guard should sign your copy, however failure to sign a summons does not make it invalid - this is known as a technical defect, technical defects do not invalidate summons once you know what the intention of the summons is and there are no fundamental defects.

Only fundamental defects such as failure to give the correct court location or issuing clerk name can render a summons invalid.

pachey200

Thanks folks just found it a bit weird it wasn't signed I wouldn't be familiar with court proceedings thankfully

Lmklad

GM228 wrote: »

The Guard should sign your copy, however failure to sign a summons does not make it invalid - this is known as a technical defect, technical defects do not invalidate summons once you know what the intention of the summons is and there are no fundamental defects.

Only fundamental defects such as failure to give the correct court location or issuing clerk name can render a summons invalid.

Can you quote legislation/ judges rules for that?

mynamejeff

GM228 wrote: »

The Guard should sign your copy, however failure to sign a summons does not make it invalid - this is known as a technical defect, technical defects do not invalidate summons once you know what the intention of the summons is and there are no fundamental defects.

Only fundamental defects such as failure to give the correct court location or issuing clerk name can render a summons invalid.

never heard of this ????

the copy that is returned to the courts by the garda who served the summons should be signed by the garda and a PC. Not having them signatures would get it thrown out alright . but only the judge or court clerk would see that

the garda serving the summons should not be the same one who is prosecuting you either

GM228

mynamejeff wrote: »

never heard of this ????

Sorry I made a bit of a boo boo with my post. To clarify it's the original summons which should be signed by the Garda and returned to the relevant District Court Office.

A copy is the one actually served (only one copy is made, not two as per a previous poster), which isn't signed.

There are exceptions where the person served will receive a signed summons - i.e if issued by a judge rather than a clerk (the judge will sign it).

mynamejeff wrote: »

the copy that is returned to the courts by the garda who served the summons should be signed by the garda and a PC.

Nope, it is not a copy of the summons which is signed by a peace commissioner aswell as the Garda who served, rather it is the statutory declaration of service which is signed by both, this is not a copy of the summons, it's a totally different form.

mynamejeff wrote: »

Not having them signatures would get it thrown out alright . but only the judge or court clerk would see that

Not necessarily.

If the statutory declaration wasn't signed and the accused still turned up then the case proceeds, a lack of signature is irrelevant in that case - but if they don't turn up it should be struck out as not served.

A lack of endorsement on the original summons will not be detrimental to any trial.

mynamejeff wrote: »

the garda serving the summons should not be the same one who is prosecuting you either

Correct.

coylemj

GM228 wrote: »

If the statutory declaration wasn't signed and the accused still turned up then the case proceeds, a lack of signature is irrelevant in that case - but if they don't turn up it should be struck out as not served.

+1 but if the case is listed and the defendant doesn't show up, isn't it highly probable that nobody will notice the defect, the case will proceed and the defendant (the OP) will be convicted?

I appreciate that you're discussing the absolute legalities but I think the OP should turn up on the day and show the Garda the insurance cert. which proves that he was covered.

A hypothetical middle ground - suppose he didn't show up but a solicitor representing him did - could that solicitor argue the case of the summons defect and would the case still proceed as you say even if the court accepts that there was a defect?

4ensic15

coylemj wrote: »

A hypothetical middle ground - suppose he didn't show up but a solicitor representing him did - could that solicitor argue the case of the summons defect and would the case still proceed as you say even if the court accepts that there was a defect?

A solicitor can make a conditional appearance to argue jurisdiction. If the solicitor loses then the accused has obviously been served and failed to appear. That can cause problems.

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

+1 but if the case is listed and the defendant doesn't show up, isn't it highly probable that nobody will notice the defect, the case will proceed and the defendant (the OP) will be convicted?

In order to convict in that case the judge must be satisfied the person was served, indeed it must be poved to the judge. The only way to do that is show the statutory declaration. If there is no signed declaration then there is no proof and it must be struck out - when the accused does not show up a judge requests this declaration.

If (and that's a big if) someone was mistakenly convicted in such circumstances where there is no declaration they can simply apply to the District Court to have the conviction set aside.

coylemj wrote: »

I appreciate that you're discussing the absolute legalities but I think the OP should turn up on the day and show the Garda the insurance cert. which proves that he was covered.

The OP is obliged to turn up.

There's also another issue. Whilst the OP may have been insured failure to produce the documents within 10 days is an offence in itself irrespective of being covered or not.

coylemj wrote: »

A hypothetical middle ground - suppose he didn't show up but a solicitor representing him did - could that solicitor argue the case of the summons defect and would the case still proceed as you say even if the court accepts that there was a defect?

What type of defect though? (there is no defect in the OPs case as a signature isn't required on their copy of the summons).

Technical defects very rarely work as a defence and never relieve someone of their obligatiom to attend. As such even when represented by solicitor or counsel the case will proceed.

Only a fundamental defect removes that obligation, but if you (or solicitor or couunsel) attend evidence of such a fundamental defect would need to be heard and judged to determine if there was a fundamental defect, if the judge determines there is no fundamental defect then a convictiom is still possible.

coylemj

GM228 wrote: »

The OP is obliged to turn up.

There's also another issue. Whilst the OP may have been insured failure to produce the documents within 10 days is an offence in itself irrespective of being covered or not.

Thanks for the comprehensive response, I accept the points you made in relation to the summons.

On the failure to produce, it would appear that the OP is guilty of this but it's a very minor offence. In most cases, if you or a family member shows up and shows a valid cert. showing you were covered on the day to the Garda before the case is called, both summons (no insurance & failure to produce) will be struck out.

4ensic15

coylemj wrote: »

Thanks for the comprehensive response, I accept the points you made in relation to the summons.

On the failure to produce, it would appear that the OP is guilty of this but it's a very minor offence. In most cases, if you or a family member shows up and shows a valid cert. showing you were covered on the day to the Garda before the case is called, both summons (no insurance & failure to produce) will be struck out.

There is very rarely satisfactory evidence of failure to produce. On DJ used to get annoyed at Defendants bringing documents to court and only showing them when the case was called, thus slowing things down. He used to convict for failure to produce if that happened. far better to deal with the guard ahead of the hearing.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

coylemj

4ensic15 wrote: »

... One DJ used to get annoyed at Defendants bringing documents to court and only showing them when the case was called, thus slowing things down. He used to convict for failure to produce if that happened. far better to deal with the guard ahead of the hearing.

+1 the standard advice is to go early, corner the Garda before the case is called and show him/her the cert.

In most cases, the Garda would then tell the defendant that all was in order, that he would ask the judge to strike out the summons and there was no reason to hang around. The case would be called, the DJ would hear the Garda's evidence of having met the defendant before the case was called, that he was insured on the day and in most cases the case would be struck out without any further ado but the odd pompous DJ would notice that the defendant was no longer in court, ask the Garda if he told the defendant he didn't have to wait for the case to be called and if the Garda said that he did, he'd get a bollicking from the bench!