Appealing €500 Travel fine?

sporina

arleitiss wrote: »

I travelled abroad recently for dentist (yes I know, one of the most lame excuses these days) and got €500 fine on way out of Dublin.

I had no proof on way out - but I came back with a whole file of documents (receipts, letter of proof of attendance which is stamped and signed by clinic and print out from government revenue website confirming payment which was also stamped and signed by clinic).

Why did you not have proof of the appointment on the way out? I assume the appointment was made before date of travel?

Fr Tod Umptious

While I think that this will get thrown out if brought to court because based on the law the OP traveled for essential purposes, I'm still curious as to why the OP did not have an documentation on the way out to show they were going for treatment.

Did it not occur to them that such documentation would be handy in case they were questioned as regards the reason for the trip ?

GerardKeating

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

It depends, I don't have a dentist within my 5km limit, so I have to travel further (as permitted by law) to a dentist.

The Law does not state you have to go to the nearest dentist.

Leave it to go to summons and have your paperwork with you on the day.

The fcpn was correct at the time as the garda had no evidence of essential travel.

That's it really. It's no different than any other fine in procedure. It will be for the judge to make a decision then.

No user here can say what the judge will decide as it's new ground

GerardKeating

GerardKeating wrote: »

It depends, I don't have a dentist within my 5km limit, so I have to travel further (as permitted by law) to a dentist.

The Law does not state you have to go to the nearest dentist.

The law does not state a mythical 5km limit either.

The law states that no non essential travel should occur. A judge could see traveling to another country when there are dentists here, as non essential or they could view all travel of any distance as essential once it's going for an essential reason. Asks the question then if I can travel to donegal to buy food.

We will need to wait and see as I don't think any have actually made it to hearing yet.

Plumbthedepths

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The law does not state a mythical 5km limit either.

The law states that no non essential travel should occur. A judge could see traveling to another country when there are dentists here, as non essential or they could view all travel of any distance as essential once it's going for an essential reason. Asks the question then if I can travel to donegal to buy food.

We will need to wait and see as I don't think any have actually made it to hearing yet.

The law allows for foreign travel for purposes of dental treatment, you are suggesting the judge can find against the OP in defiance of the law?
I thought this was a thread specifically for legal discussion, apparently it's for unfounded nonsense and personal opinion including desire for what some posters would like to see happen to the OP.

AndrewJRenko

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The law allows for foreign travel for purposes of dental treatment, you are suggesting the judge can find against the OP in defiance of the law?
I thought this was a thread specifically for legal discussion, apparently it's for unfounded nonsense and personal opinion including desire for what some posters would like to see happen to the OP.

The law allows for travel for food, but if you travel 80km to get your personal choice of burger, you end up with a fine;

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/offbeat/16-of-the-worst-lockdown-breakers-stung-by-gardai-during-lockdown-three-from-lonely-hearts-to-dublin-airport-chancer/ar-BB1dIGik

bosco12345

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

Why think like this? Fair play to the guy for getting his dental treatment abroad and saving himself probably in the region of €10000 +. Smart move.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The law allows for foreign travel for purposes of dental treatment, you are suggesting the judge can find against the OP in defiance of the law?
I thought this was a thread specifically for legal discussion, apparently it's for unfounded nonsense and personal opinion including desire for what some posters would like to see happen to the OP.

I know how the law and the system work thanks and anyone that does, knows that a new law will be interpreted by a Judge. In some cases it will be sent up for clarification and in other times a decision will create case law. I also know that a new law is very rarely left alone and beyond interpretation.

I am suggesting that a judge may consider travelling to another country to be excessive and not reasonable when there are options locally.

As I said and another user demonstrated, reasons for leaving the house to travel do not allow carte blanche.

PunkIPA

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I know how the law and the system work thanks and anyone that does, knows that a new law will be interpreted by a Judge.

You are correct in saying that the Courts must often engage in statutory interpretation in determining a novel point of law. This will arise in circumstances where there is some ambiguity inherent in the statute. No such ambiguity arises here. The Regulations unambiguously allow for travel outside of the jurisdiction for the purpose of attending a dental appointment.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I am suggesting that a judge may consider travelling to another country to be excessive and not reasonable when there are options locally.

You are again quite correct in this assertion. The judge may very well believe the OP's actions to be both excessive and unreasonable. What the judge cannot do, however, is find the OP guilty of an offence contrary to Regulations on the basis of this opinion.

At the risk of repeating myself and others, the Regulations do not say that the dental appointment must be reasonable. They do not say that the appointment must be urgent. They do not say that the travel must not be excessive or unnecessary in light of domestic alternatives.

All of these may be reasons to be critical of the OP's behaviour, or not, but none of them are legal requirements.

Other "reasonable excuses" are specifically qualified, like moving house, for example:-

4(2)(p) move to another residence where, in all the circumstances of the case, such movement is reasonably necessary,

The fact is that the Regulations are very poorly drafted. Without wanting to open up further irrelevant discussion, there is good reason to believe the guys travelling 80k for a burger may have got off too if they tried to run their case. I'm assuming they just paid the fine, but the right to travel for a takeaway isn't qualified either.

If people don't like this, don't blame the OP, don't blame the judges, blame the Oireachtas.

Homer

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

When I was younger, I used to wonder how McCarthyism, or the Stalinist policy of informing on your neighbour could have taken place. I no longer wonder why.

Plumbthedepths

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The law allows for travel for food, but if you travel 80km to get your personal choice of burger, you end up with a fine;

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/offbeat/16-of-the-worst-lockdown-breakers-stung-by-gardai-during-lockdown-three-from-lonely-hearts-to-dublin-airport-chancer/ar-BB1dIGik

I find it hilarious anyone actually believed those lads were off to buy a burger. However your post has no relevance to either the law being discussed here or the OPs situation.

PunkIPA

PunkIPA wrote: »

You are correct in saying that the Courts must often engage in statutory interpretation in determining a novel point of law. This will arise in circumstances where there is some ambiguity inherent in the statute. No such ambiguity arises here. The Regulations unambiguously allow for travel outside of the jurisdiction for the purpose of attending a dental appointment.




You are again quite correct in this assertion. The judge may very well believe the OP's actions to be both excessive and unreasonable. What the judge cannot do, however, is find the OP guilty of an offence contrary to Regulations on the basis of this opinion.

At the risk of repeating myself and others, the Regulations do not say that the dental appointment must be reasonable. They do not say that the appointment must be urgent. They do not say that the travel must not be excessive or unnecessary in light of domestic alternatives.

All of these may be reasons to be critical of the OP's behaviour, or not, but none of them are legal requirements.

Other "reasonable excuses" are specifically qualified, like moving house, for example:-

4(2)(p) move to another residence where, in all the circumstances of the case, such movement is reasonably necessary,

The fact is that the Regulations are very poorly drafted. Without wanting to open up further irrelevant discussion, there is good reason to believe the guys travelling 80k for a burger may have got off too if they tried to run their case. I'm assuming they just paid the fine, but the right to travel for a takeaway isn't qualified either.

If people don't like this, don't blame the OP, don't blame the judges, blame the Oireachtas.

You have completely messed up here. The reason for travel may be covered. The travel itself must be justified. The travel itself must be essential.

If there's a choice between a 1km away and b 1000km away. The extra 999km are not essential. In my opinion. I do not believe s defence of "I went to Madrid for churros" will get you off. But again, personal opinion.

No person here can decide the law as it stands because we are not judge's and no, judges dont just decide on certain parts. They interprete the law. Every single day in every single court based on arguments put forward.

Why was vagrancy and begging declared lawful after 100 years? Because a defence argument was submitted and the court made a determination of the law. A law from 1870. Yet we are supposed to believe there's no uncertainty surrounding a new law with over 20 amendments, that has yet to have a hearing? No. The fact that we are arguing here shows there's different interpretations.

Covid regulations are prime tender meat for an eager solicitor looking to make a name.

PunkIPA

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You have completely messed up here. The reason for travel may be covered. The travel itself must be justified. The travel itself must be essential.

Please point me to the Regulation which says you can only travel to the airport for the purpose of leaving the State if your travel is "justified" or "essential".

You will be unable to do that because no such Regulation exists. The Regulation says you can only travel to the airport to leave the State with a "reasonable excuse". Obtaining dental treatment is defined as a reasonable excuse, without qualification.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If there's a choice between a 1km away and b 1000km away. The extra 999km are not essential. In my opinion.

I agree. It's also irrelevant, for reasons outlined above.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I do not believe s defence of "I went to Madrid for churros" will get you off. But again, personal opinion.

Correct. International travel for churros is not deemed a "reasonable excuse" in the Regulations. Travel for a dental appointment is.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

No person here can decide the law as it stands because we are not judge's and no, judges dont just decide on certain parts. They interprete the law. Every single day in every single court based on arguments put forward.

I might be a judge, for all you know. As it happens, I'm not. But I do appear in Court almost every single day. Or at least I did prior to Covid! There is nothing for a judge to interpret in the Regulations relating to travel. There is no ambiguity. Frankly, they could be understood by anyone with a basic command of English. They may be inconsistent, but they are not ambiguous. If you believe they are ambiguous, please point to the precise term and we can have a discussion.

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Covid regulations are prime tender meat for an eager solicitor looking to make a name.

Or barrister! I agree, OP should go to a solicitor. Many will be willing to act pro bono.

I'll avoid quotes to keep it brief.

Under the latest regulations as per HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A - TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS)
(COVID-19) (NO. 10) REGULATIONS 2020

You must not leave your residence without a reasonable excuse.

ESSENTIAL dental treatment is covered.

So is it reasonable to travel from cork to Dublin airport to get a dental check-up in turkey?

I don't think it is. Perhaps you do not again, it's for the courts to determine.

athlone573

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'll avoid quotes to keep it brief.

Under the latest regulations as per HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A - TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS)
(COVID-19) (NO. 10) REGULATIONS 2020

You must not leave your residence without a reasonable excuse.

ESSENTIAL dental treatment is covered.

So is it reasonable to travel from cork to Dublin airport to get a dental check-up in turkey?

I don't think it is. Perhaps you do.

It's not illegal,which in this forum is the pertinent point.

NSAman

arleitiss wrote: »

Why did you not have proof of the appointment on the way out? I assume the appointment was made before date of travel?

I know it was different times, but I did the same. During a pandemic it’s presumable the dentist would have sent an email confirming same. Seeing it would probably have been in a different language would the Gardai accept an email on a phone?

I understand getting dental treatment abroad, having saved thousands doing the same I can utterly understand the OP’s situation.

I think this will be thrown out too, but who knows.

Juwwi

drunkmonkey wrote: »

If you find one that's in court that day anyway it won't be much, this is easily one where you can represent yourself, just bring along the paperwork showing proof of dentistry work.

Genuine question how do you find a solicitor that's in court anyway ?

Cold call solicitors or hang around outside the court ?

PunkIPA

Juwwi wrote: »

Genuine question how do you find a solicitor that's in court anyway ?

Cold call solicitors or hang around outside the court ?

In normal circumstances there will be plenty of solicitors in Court, they will be easy to spot. Just go up to one of them when they aren't addressing the Court and ask them if they can talk.

Ray Donovan

From my reading of the regulations PunkIPA is totally correct here. Dental Appointments are clearly given as “reasonable excuse” to travel. It’s irrelevant really if its a cleaning or €10,000 worth of procedures, they are both dental appointments. Nowhere in the regulations does it mention that the dental appointment must be essential.

As someone mentioned earlier Drew Harris can say what he likes but the law is pretty clear here & its an easy loophole to use for travel.

The regulation states that a reasonable excuse is “To go to a medical or dental appointment, or to go to an appointment with someone you live with, or a vulnerable person”.

Zero ambiguity there.

gmisk

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I find it hilarious anyone actually believed those lads were off to buy a burger. However your post has no relevance to either the law being discussed here or the OPs situation.

You have obviously not had a bujo burger before

PunkIPA

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I'll avoid quotes to keep it brief.

Under the latest regulations as per HEALTH ACT 1947 (SECTION 31A - TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS)
(COVID-19) (NO. 10) REGULATIONS 2020

You must not leave your residence without a reasonable excuse.

ESSENTIAL dental treatment is covered.

So is it reasonable to travel from cork to Dublin airport to get a dental check-up in turkey?

I don't think it is. Perhaps you do not again, it's for the courts to determine.

The OP isn't being charged under Regulation 4, he is being charged under Regulation 4A.

AndrewJRenko

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I find it hilarious anyone actually believed those lads were off to buy a burger. However your post has no relevance to either the law being discussed here or the OPs situation.

Taking a nine day trip abroad for dental treatment is fairly hilarious too.

Plumbthedepths

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Taking a nine day trip abroad for dental treatment is fairly hilarious too.

Clearly you know nothing of the law which applies in this case or the specific nature of the treatment the OP has undergone.
Education of various dental treatments would clarify for you that certain dental procedures take place over several days likewise an advisory against travel particularly by air can also be a factor in treatments.

Plumbthedepths

gmisk wrote: »

You have obviously not had a bujo burger before

I also have not enjoyed the bye product of the coca leaf.

seannyhk

arleitiss wrote: »

I travelled abroad recently for dentist (yes I know, one of the most lame excuses these days) and got €500 fine on way out of Dublin.


I am flying over to Ukraine every few months for various dental procedures (including ongoing teeth straightening with braces).


I had no proof on way out - but I came back with a whole file of documents (receipts, letter of proof of attendance which is stamped and signed by clinic and print out from government revenue website confirming payment which was also stamped and signed by clinic).

I got Fixed Payment Notice recently and emailed fixed charge processing office to which I got email saying they see no grounds for appeal.


They suggested to either pay the fine or ignore it and wait for it to proceed to summons stage where I can outline my case before the presiding judge.



Is it fair to assume that I can just ignore notice - then head to court and present these documents I have as proof and the fine will/might get discarded?

Pain is a wonderful phenomena. If you could share my last experience of a bite of food on the happy tooth the sensibility of essential travel would be a formality. Your honour, please pardon me, but I truly only remember pain as my defense.

Plumbthedepths

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Education of various dental treatments would clarify for you that certain dental procedures take place over several days.

Orthodontics/teeth straightening is not one of them.

kirving

Dav010 wrote: »

Orthodontics/teeth straightening is not one of them.

As per the OP...

arleitiss wrote: »

various dental procedures (including ongoing teeth straightening with braces).

In any case, my surgeon and orthodontist have asked me numerous times to drop back after a week to make sure everything was still seated OK, or that everything was healing properly.

AndrewJRenko

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Clearly you know nothing of the law which applies in this case or the specific nature of the treatment the OP has undergone.
Education of various dental treatments would clarify for you that certain dental procedures take place over several days likewise an advisory against travel particularly by air can also be a factor in treatments.

I know as much about the specific nature of the treatment as anyone else on this thread. Good to see you confirming that the nature of treatment may well be a factor in the Judge's decision in Court.

Spook_ie

I don't understand if the OP actually had an appointment or not, and if they had an appointment why they had no text or email to confirm such an appointment.

I mean, say I wanted to go to Madrid for a long weekend what would stop me from booking a flight out and just popping into a dentist to get a scale and polish to cover my ass when I got back.

I think the real concern is with the following wording

(e) attend a medical or dental appointment, or accompany, to such an appointment, any other person residing with the person, or a vulnerable person,

(f) seek essential medical, health or dental assistance for the person, for any other person residing with the person, or for a vulnerable person,

And that could be interpreted in different ways by different judges

AndrewJRenko

Interesting to see the Judge questioning the essential nature of travel in this case; https://www.thejournal.ie/women-dubai-mandatory-quarantine-5400257-Apr2021/?utm_source=twitter_short

GM228

Spook_ie wrote: »

I don't understand if the OP actually had an appointment or not, and if they had an appointment why they had no text or email to confirm such an appointment.

I mean, say I wanted to go to Madrid for a long weekend what would stop me from booking a flight out and just popping into a dentist to get a scale and polish to cover my ass when I got back.

I think the real concern is with the following wording



And that could be interpreted in different ways by different judges

Whilst there may be several interpretations of what is considered "essential", how many ways are there to interpret "appointment"? once you satisfy (e), you don't have to satisfy (f).

Plumbthedepths

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I know as much about the specific nature of the treatment as anyone else on this thread. Good to see you confirming that the nature of treatment may well be a factor in the Judge's decision in Court.

You clearly know nothing of the law and what allows the OP to challenge the fine he received. The rest of your comments here seem to be nothing more than what you hope will happen. However if it makes you feel better carry on.
Anyway this thread is in the wrong forum , it should be in After Hours the nonsense posted here is definitely below what constitutes legal discussion.

AndrewJRenko

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You clearly know nothing of the law and what allows the OP to challenge the fine he received. The rest of your comments here seem to be nothing more than what you hope will happen. However if it makes you feel better carry on.
Anyway this thread is in the wrong forum , it should be in After Hours the nonsense posted here is definitely below what constitutes legal discussion.

Don't think anyone here knows too much about this law and what will happen, given that it is new and untested. I don't need your permission to carry on.

maestroamado

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting to see the Judge questioning the essential nature of travel in this case; https://www.thejournal.ie/women-dubai-mandatory-quarantine-5400257-Apr2021/?utm_source=twitter_short

I wonder did we also pay for the boob job?
I cannot understand how a person who can afford to pay for this flight plus this medical procedure can be granted legal aid...

rocky477

Hey buddy how's your case went out with this??Because I am in a similar situation?

FishOnABike

Surely there is some sort of appeals process between getting notice of a fine and getting a court summons for non payment of the fine?

GM228

FishOnABike wrote: »

Surely there is some sort of appeals process between getting notice of a fine and getting a court summons for non payment of the fine?

You apply to the FCP Office in Tipperary, however the clock does not stop ticking whilst you await a response.

stlucia2021

Homer wrote: »

You could have gone to a dentist in this country surely? Therefore, your trip was not essential. Thats the way I hope a judge would see it.

Aren't you forgetting about how expensive dentists are in Ireland?

stlucia2021

stlucia2021 wrote: »

Aren't you forgetting about how expensive dentists are in Ireland?

Interestingly most salaries paid in Ireland compare favourably to those paid in lower cost economies. Incidentally, the average monthly wage in Ukraine is €280. You are an expensive employee to have, by comparison.

conorking

Hi,

Just wondering how things panned out for you? I am in a similar situation (travelling abroad to accompany my daughter to a medical appointment) and am going to court over this.

Would appreciate an update.

thanks

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121141142#Comment_121141142

As the COVID travel restrictions are no longer in force your reasons for going to court are entirely different. The OP's experience would therefore not be relevant to your circumstances.

conorking

My reasons are almost identical. I am going to court now for travel to an airport during 2021 (when covid restrictions were in place).

My ‘reasonable excuses’ include those specifically listed in the Regulations (like the OP) and have similar documentary evidence.

Just wondering how the OP’s case played out.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121141736#Comment_121141736

Apologies, my misunderstanding. I thought your travel with your daughter was current rather than during COVID travel restrictions.

For what it is worth I regularly had to travel (driving within Ireland) for both work and family reasons during the 5km and 20km restrictions and never had a problem at any checkpoints.

I had the paperwork with me but it was rarely if ever asked for or checked. Any gardaí were polite and friendly and if anything seemed to be relieved to have someone passing through to break the monotony of standing at the roadside for hours in all weather.

If you have all the documentary evidence supporting your travel I'd try contacting the prosecuting Garda and ask if the prosecution can be withdrawn by consent on the day in court (but do turn up with all the documents on the day).

If the prosecuting Garda agrees it should just be a formality to have the charge withdrawn in court on the day. If not, have your documentation at the ready to argue your case.

conorking

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121144310#Comment_121144310

I attended court today and thankfully all went well. I presented documents that proved I had a legitimate reason for travel outside of Ireland and the case was struck out.

Interestingly those very same documents were presented to the ‘Cancelling Authority’ when I first appealed the fine but they were rejected because some clown in there felt they weren’t reasonable grounds for such travel. At least the judge could interpret the law better than those jokers.

Thankfully this ordeal is over but my message to everyone is to not pay any fine (mine was €2000). Even people who didn’t turn up at court were only fined €300 in absence. Anyone who held their hands up and said they made a mistake only had to pay a €100 donation to charity.

conorking

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/116691670#Comment_116691670

This has to be the most pathetic embarrassing comment on this whole thread. The guy did nothing wrong.

endacl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121145070#Comment_121145070

2nd most pathetic embarrassing comment. The most pathetic embarrassing comment was commenting on it two years after the fact…

conorking

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121145117#Comment_121145117

What has time got to do with it? I searched the forum for someone who faced a similar issue to what I was facing. I read the thread from start to finish to learn how it went. It doesn’t matter when Homer posted his embarrassing comment.

Go away.