Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fixed Charge Notice.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    garyskeepers
    Registered Users Posts: 364 ✭✭garyskeepers


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You can only be charged for something that is an offence under the law.

    "“Parking In A Manner That Obstructed Other Traffic” doesn't sound like the kind of language that normally appears in a fixed penalty notice, summons or charge - criminal offences are never set out in the past tense. So this looks like a simple misprint in this instance. As long as the intended offence is clear - i.e. if there is a statutory reference in the document - the misdescription of the offence can be rectified. This isn't a get-out-of-jail card.

    ok, someone who listens, thank you. The get out of jail free card is what I was looking for. Since I have heard so many stories of people getting off on a techicality because someone had written the wrong date, or the wrong name or place, why WOULDNT i think that if one hadnt done the thing being charged for that it should be nul and void.

    ok. I will check to see if there is a statutory reference, which I am sure there will be.


  • Options
    #33
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    garyskeepers wrote: »
    ok, someone who listens, thank you.

    Eh, I already pointed this out to you...

    GM228 wrote: »
    The offence is specifically in relation to parking "in a manner in which it will interfere with the normal flow of traffic or which obstructs or endangers other traffic", that is the offence as prescribed by law.

    <SNIP>

    obstructed is not a word used in the offence itself, a FCPN or summons does not have to be exact copy and paste wording of the offence concerned once it quotes the accurate "contrary to" provision, and even if you want to make out a technical defect argument they can easily be amended and usually will be useless unless the defect seriously prejudices the right to fair trial.


    garyskeepers wrote: »
    why WOULDNT i think that if one hadnt done the thing being charged for that it should be nul and void.

    That would be raising a defence, not raising a technical defect.


  • Options
    #34
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,211 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    garyskeepers wrote: »
    ok, someone who listens, thank you. The get out of jail free card is what I was looking for. Since I have heard so many stories of people getting off on a techicality because someone had written the wrong date, or the wrong name or place, why WOULDNT i think that if one hadnt done the thing being charged for that it should be nul and void.

    ok. I will check to see if there is a statutory reference, which I am sure there will be.

    Hundreds of thousands of prosecutions are taken in the District Court annually. A very small number are dismissed on a technicality. Those cases get a disproportionate amount of publicity relative to the number of them. In virtually all cases where there is a successful technical defence, an experienced solicitor or barrister is involved. The costs of instructing a lawyer will be greater than the fine in the vast majority of minor road traffic offences. To defend the charge involves turning up in court, hanging around until the case is called, trying to explain the defence to a board and pissed off judge and hoping that the judge will strike out the case. The most likely outcome is a higher fine and more penalty points.


Advertisement