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
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

[Article] Legal loophole sees 2,000 speeding cases dropped

Options
  • 23-04-2005 8:22pm
    #1
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,400 ✭✭✭✭


    http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=4120-qqqx=1.asp
    Legal loophole sees 2,000 speeding cases dropped

    17 April 2005 By Barry O'Kelly
    Gardai are believed to have dropped more than 2,000 speeding prosecutions because of a legal loophole identified in a High Court ruling.

    The prosecutions relate to motorists caught by laser guns before the last week of January.

    The loophole emerged when a court found that the monitoring device, called the Ultralyte 100 laser gun, did not produce a written or other permanent record of the speeding breach.

    Garda sources told The Sunday Business Post that more than 2,000 pending cases will not proceed because of the ruling.

    Some lawyers have claimed that the ruling could lead to further cases being dropped.

    However, the Departments of Transport and Justice are believed to be confident that the loophole has been shored up by new legislation which coincidentally came into law only weeks before the test case.

    The ruling was made by Mr Justice O'Sullivan following a prosecution case brought against a motorist in Longford who was caught driving at 63mph in a 40mph zone.

    The prosecuting garda admitted that the laser gun produced a digital reading, but did not produce a permanent record of the speed detected.

    When the case was referred to the High Court by the DPP, it was found that the gun did not meet the requirements of Section 21 (1) and 21 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 2002.


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    A guy I work with and his son both got off separate in Wicklow the other day. The father was summoned but his name was not on the docket. The son was called. The judge asked the Guard for proof of the offense. He was told there was none, the judge threw it out and said he would throw any others that came before him out.

    MrP


  • Options
    #3
    jdm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9 ✭jdm


    I was stopped about 6 months ago and havent recieved anything yet,

    Not even a fine. What does this mean?

    Could mine be one of the 2000 cases dropped :) or just a delay :mad:


  • Options
    #4
    bp_me
    Registered Users Posts: 1,648 ✭✭✭bp_me


    I think that after six months they cannot do anything about it.


  • Options
    #5
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    They have 6 months to prosecute I belive.

    Mike.


Advertisement