Limerick barrister seeks landmark speeding judgement

frozenfrozen

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Perhaps drivers living in rural areas should consider the importance of their driving licence before they put their foot on the accelerator?

this case isn't about using the accelerator its about being able to contest when you think they haven't actually caught you speeding.

Gn wood is a drink/drug advocate anyway not speed

Cerco

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Perhaps drivers living in rural areas should consider the importance of their driving licence before they put their foot on the accelerator?

In general people in rural areas start driving earlier in life, they are very dependent on their car and use them most frequently for all journeys As a consequence they become complacent. Speed limits etc are frequently not observed.
Sine they are dependent on their car then the onus is on them to exercise greater attention to the rules.

Seth Brundle

Kevhog1988 wrote: »

i posted here recently :https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=116473429

The missus was stopped for "speeding" when the garda was on the very border of a speed limit and never showed her any record of her speed etc. I wanted her to go to court and contest it but she was afraid of additional points affecting her insurance. I dont believe the lesser points if you accept the fcpn is necessarily a good thing. We should eb allowed to at least see the evidence of something like this before accepting the points.

In fairness, your missus was caught on a wide open road after crossing a speed limit reduction where the garda was sitting in plain sight yet you and your missus didn't see him which would question your observation skills leading me to think that you both were also unaware of her speed.
She was caught fair and sqyare and apart from her attempt for sympathy by crying to the garda, had nothing to help her case.
Going to court would have been a stupid move that would rightly have resulted in more points on her licence.
I'm surprised that you're still going on about it though!

frozenfrozen

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In fairness, your missus was caught on a wide open road after crossing a speed limit reduction where the garda was sitting in plain sight yet you and your missus didn't see him which would question your observation skills leading me to think that you both were also unaware of her speed.
She was caught fair and sqyare and apart from her attempt for sympathy by crying to the garda, had nothing to help her case.
Going to court would have been a stupid move that would rightly have resulted in more points on her licence.
I'm surprised that you're still going on about it though!

the mans posting about how they didnt want to risk contesting the fact they thought the measurement was taken before they entered the lower speed zone.

Why try knock him like that for posting a perfect example of what the thread is about

JC01

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

There are limits on your rights to free speech. Check out the Incitement to Hatred legislation.

That's what you take from my point

Come on you do see the massive disparity in how traffic laws and all other laws are prosecuted in this country don't you?

jimmycrackcorm

I don't quite get the barristers rationale for this case:

"Mr Hayes believes the lack of opportunity to challenge the evidence of a garda, other than in court, is unconstitutional. He believes section 37 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 does not afford you the opportunity to challenge the evidence of a garda other than in court."

If there were no FCPNs then the only procedure is going to always go to court, (as it used to be). How would he propose an opportunity to challenge the garda should work in that instance?

How was it constitutional before FCPNs and court was the only process, yet the introduction of FCPN's make that unconstitutional?

ohnonotgmail

JC01 wrote: »

That's what you take from my point

Come on you do see the massive disparity in how traffic laws and all other laws are prosecuted in this country don't you?

yeah, you don't get to avoid a trip to court for the majority of offences.

Seth Brundle

frozenfrozen wrote: »

the mans posting about how they didnt want to risk contesting the fact they thought the measurement was taken before they entered the lower speed zone.

Why try knock him like that for posting a perfect example of what the thread is about

How?
Are you saying that the garda used a reading taken before Kevhog1988's missus crossed the limit boundary but claimed that this was her speed after the limit change and that he should not have done this?
If so, have you any evidence to back up the allegation that the garda is lying apart from Kevhog1988's claim which originally was incorrect about the distance the garda was from the line and also given their poor observation at the time?

frozenfrozen

Seth Brundle wrote: »

How?
Are you saying that the garda used a reading taken before Kevhog1988's missus crossed the limit boundary but claimed that this was her speed after the limit change and that he should not have done this?
If so, have you any evidence to back up the allegation that the garda is lying apart from Kevhog1988's claim which originally was incorrect about the distance the garda was from the line and also given their poor observation at the time?

and he's off! sprinting in totally the wrong direction!

had it not been a risk to do so between extra points and money for a solicitor and the extra fine then I am saying that Kev would have gone to court to argue that.

same as the other guy on here who had to accept the seatbelt fine because the costs meant it was just altogether a better option to accept the wrong points

that's the whole point of this. It shouldn't be a "how dare you question them" you should be able to say you think they measured your speed in the higher zone without way higher punishment for being wrong. As in that's literally the whole point. Imagine missing it as opposed to disagreeing with it, that's fair going

Seth Brundle

It isn't a case of "how dare you question them" but in this case you have someone asserting that they think they were in the right despite initially getting the location of the garda wrong, not seeing a garda parked up at the side of the road and also having nothing to back up their claim apart from "I think I'm right"
Even if there was no difference in the number of points in an unsuccesful court challenge to this, Kevhog's missus wouldn't have had a minute chance of success in this case. Their poor observation of the driver and passenger at the time coupled with them having a permanent record of their speed e.g. dashcam footage means that they are just denying what the garda is claiming was a valid capture.
They have absolutely no evidence that the garda made an incorrect or unfair capture.
What you are hoping is that the garda should provide a photo of each and every instance but the reality of policing is that you can't do this each and every time. So the law needs to allow for a garda to provide verbal evidence of their belief of an offence and therefore physical evidence won't be essential.

Duckjob

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Yeah imagine the cheek of them not giving you the chance to slow down before prosecuting you. Really??? :rolleyes:

Yes, apparently If you're breaking the law you're "entitled" to know when and where the gardai are going to be checking for law breaking so that you can stop breaking the law for a few moments and then resume when you get past the check.

We really are quite the nation of little babies when it comes to sense of entitlement in our cars.

Kevhog1988

frozenfrozen wrote: »

and he's off! sprinting in totally the wrong direction!

had it not been a risk to do so between extra points and money for a solicitor and the extra fine then I am saying that Kev would have gone to court to argue that.

same as the other guy on here who had to accept the seatbelt fine because the costs meant it was just altogether a better option to accept the wrong points

that's the whole point of this. It shouldn't be a "how dare you question them" you should be able to say you think they measured your speed in the higher zone without way higher punishment for being wrong. As in that's literally the whole point. Imagine missing it as opposed to disagreeing with it, that's fair going

If it had of been me driving and not the missus i would of 100% went to court.

Kevhog1988

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It isn't a case of "how dare you question them" but in this case you have someone asserting that they think they were in the right despite initially getting the location of the garda wrong, not seeing a garda parked up at the side of the road and also having nothing to back up their claim apart from "I think I'm right"
Even if there was no difference in the number of points in an unsuccesful court challenge to this, Kevhog's missus wouldn't have had a minute chance of success in this case. Their poor observation of the driver and passenger at the time coupled with them having a permanent record of their speed e.g. dashcam footage means that they are just denying what the garda is claiming was a valid capture.
They have absolutely no evidence that the garda made an incorrect or unfair capture.
What you are hoping is that the garda should provide a photo of each and every instance but the reality of policing is that you can't do this each and every time. So the law needs to allow for a garda to provide verbal evidence of their belief of an offence and therefore physical evidence won't be essential.

We also have seen no evidence that there was a speeding offence except for the Garda's "Claim". If you are innocent until proven guilty the garda should adequately prove that you were speeding.

frozenfrozen

Seth Brundle wrote: »

It isn't a case of "how dare you question them" but in this case you have someone asserting that they think they were in the right despite initially getting the location of the garda wrong, not seeing a garda parked up at the side of the road and also having nothing to back up their claim apart from "I think I'm right"
Even if there was no difference in the number of points in an unsuccesful court challenge to this, Kevhog's missus wouldn't have had a minute chance of success in this case. Their poor observation of the driver and passenger at the time coupled with them having a permanent record of their speed e.g. dashcam footage means that they are just denying what the garda is claiming was a valid capture.
They have absolutely no evidence that the garda made an incorrect or unfair capture.
What you are hoping is that the garda should provide a photo of each and every instance but the reality of policing is that you can't do this each and every time. So the law needs to allow for a garda to provide verbal evidence of their belief of an offence and therefore physical evidence won't be essential.

you are so close but so far away

and your "what you are hoping for" is wrong and if you want to know what I'm hoping for then ask me but don't tell me

JC01

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah, you don't get to avoid a trip to court for the majority of offences.

The closest comparison I can think of are on the spot fines for certain offences, say the recent covid 100e fines. Challenging these in court does not lead to an automatic doubling of the penalty if your found guilty.

And the trip to court is really the crux of the issue here, as it stands we have a system where you are punished for losing a challenge against the application of a penalty. That doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny ina legal system that's supposed to be open and transparent and it actively encourages poor policing.

Let's say your on a night out and a garda sees a lad wearing the same clothes as you punch another lad. He mistankingly arrests you, fully convinced he's caught the correct person. Your now told you'll be fined 500e and have to do 50hrs community service if you sign a form saying your guilty. Alternatively you can go to court to fight it but your told the minimum sentence you'll receive if you fail in your challenge is 1 month in prison. What would you do in this situation? And more importantly do you think this is a fair system?

ohnonotgmail

Kevhog1988 wrote: »

We also have seen no evidence that there was a speeding offence except for the Garda's "Claim". If you are innocent until proven guilty the garda should adequately prove that you were speeding.

they would be more than happy to provide that in court.

ohnonotgmail

JC01 wrote: »

The closest comparison I can think of are on the spot fines for certain offences, say the recent covid 100e fines. Challenging these in court does not lead to an automatic doubling of the penalty if your found guilty.

And the trip to court is really the crux of the issue here, as it stands we have a system where you are punished for losing a challenge against the application of a penalty. That doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny ina legal system that's supposed to be open and transparent and it actively encourages poor policing.

this just isn't true. you receive a discount on the penalty if you pay the FCPN. and it is entirely normal to receive a reduced sentence for an early guilty plea. for non-fixed charged offences you can do that on your first appearance in court. for fixed charge offences you do that by paying the FCPN.

JC01

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

this just isn't true. you receive a discount on the penalty if you pay the FCPN. and it is entirely normal to receive a reduced sentence for an early guilty plea. for non-fixed charged offences you can do that on your first appearance in court. for fixed charge offences you do that by paying the FCPN.

Your being intentionally disingenuous now, by that logic 4 points is an acceptable penalty for being 10km over the limit on an empty road?

And you’ve completely ignored the two points where I made actual comparisons between traffic laws and other laws.

ohnonotgmail

JC01 wrote: »

The closest comparison I can think of are on the spot fines for certain offences, say the recent covid 100e fines. Challenging these in court does not lead to an automatic doubling of the penalty if your found guilty.

And the trip to court is really the crux of the issue here, as it stands we have a system where you are punished for losing a challenge against the application of a penalty. That doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny ina legal system that's supposed to be open and transparent and it actively encourages poor policing.

Let's say your on a night out and a garda sees a lad wearing the same clothes as you punch another lad. He mistankingly arrests you, fully convinced he's caught the correct person. Your now told you'll be fined 500e and have to do 50hrs community service if you sign a form saying your guilty. Alternatively you can go to court to fight it but your told the minimum sentence you'll receive if you fail in your challenge is 1 month in prison. What would you do in this situation? And more importantly do you think this is a fair system?

JC01 wrote: »

Your being intentionally disingenuous now, by that logic 4 points is an acceptable penalty for being 10km over the limit on an empty road?

And you’ve completely ignored the two points where I made actual comparisons between traffic laws and other laws.

no, i have answered all your points. for every offence there is almost the certainty that if you contest the charge in court you will receive a higher sentence. that applies almost universally in the western legal system. now, what points have I not answered?

Witcher

JC01 wrote: »

Your being intentionally disingenuous now, by that logic 4 points is an acceptable penalty for being 10km over the limit on an empty road?

And you’ve completely ignored the two points where I made actual comparisons between traffic laws and other laws.

Nobody gets 4 points for speeding.

AndrewJRenko

JC01 wrote: »

That's what you take from my point

Come on you do see the massive disparity in how traffic laws and all other laws are prosecuted in this country don't you?

Certainly, we all see gross underenforcement of traffic laws. When we have 98% of drivers breaking urban speed limits (RSA Speed Survey) and the majority of drivers using their phones while driving (Liberty Insurance survey, Toyota survey), we have a big problem with compliance with traffic laws.