Speeding offence nonsense and fixed penalties

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
I wonder do people know about this, and what is their opinion on this matter.

A person rang me this morning, to ask if I could get some information for him regarding speeding offences, and the law in relation to challenging a speeding offence in court.

He was stopped doing 64 kph, in what he was told was a 60 kph zone by a Garda, and was shown the reading on the speed gun.

He said that he felt he was not breaking the limit in that area, but did not argue with the Garda by the roadside.

The Garda was by herself in the car, and it was on a very wide stretch of main road, the main Limerick-Waterford road, outside of Clonmel. (He was travelling away from Clonmel)

Because it was a bank holiday morning, there was no other traffic on the road.

Anyways, because he asked me what he could do, I went onto the internet, and looked at the road traffic act in relation to it (public reps seemingly are considered cheap solicitors, and also his solicitor wouldn't be available before tommorow)

Here is a copy of the Act. regarding "Evidence in relation to certain offences"

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA12Y2002S21.html


Now people need to be aware of a few things.

The only visual record that the driver saw of what the Garda said was him exceeding the limit, was a reading on the speed gun, at the side of the road.

He felt, that in his opinion, the reading was incorrect.

My first question was in relation to documentary evidence that the particular reading was made, if the person wished to challenge this case in court, instead of taking the fixed charge fine, and penalty points.

The response from the staff sargent on the desk was:

The speed gun are incapable of giving documentary proof of the reading on the meter.

Not only that, but the Garda admitted, that once a reading was taken, the reading would lock onto the screen, until the trigger was pressed again.

This could mean that technically, an over-speed reading could be taken once, and this would remain on the camera, unless the Garda cleared the screen. If he/she didn't, they could continue to show the same reading to every driver they stopped thereafter, and none of these drivers would be able to prove that they were not the persons recorded at that speed reading.


Second question was, that the Act above stated "(2) In proceedings for an offence referred to in subsection (1)—

(a) a document—

(i) purporting to be, or to be a copy of, a record referred in that subsection and to be signed by a member of the Garda Síochána, and
(ii) on which is endorsed a statement to the effect that it is, or is a copy of, the record aforesaid,
shall be prima facie evidence in those proceedings of the indications or measurements contained in the record, and it shall not be necessary to prove the signature on the document or that the signatory was a member of the Garda Síochána, and"

I said that this part of the Act required that documentary evidence be given to the offender prior to him going to court.



his response was

That the summons would state the speed that the driver was doing, and this is the only documentary evidence that is necessary.

(basically the guard can write what they like on the summons, and the person has no prima facie evidence to prove that he was doing any other speed)

Then, heres where the Act really threw me a wobbly.

In relation to the device used to record the excessive speed, i.e. the speed gun

The Act says...

"can be inferred of measurements or other indications which were given by electronic or other apparatus (including a camera) and are contained in a record produced by that apparatus, and it shall not be necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order."

Basically this Act says, that you can be charged with an offence by using a speed gun, but under the law, the Gardai have no requirement to prove that the gun is accurate, or in fact even works.

What the hell chance do you have if you wish to challenge that in court ?


It then goes on to say

the recording device shall

"b) be of a type that has been approved by—

(i) the Commissioner or another member of the Garda Síochána not below the rank of Chief Superintendent authorised in that behalf by the Commissioner, or
(ii) the chief executive officer of the National Roads Authority or another officer of that Authority duly authorised in that behalf by the first-mentioned officer,"


but

in relation to the actual device used to make the recording, if you challenge the device to the Gardai

"it shall not be necessary to prove that the apparatus is of a type so approved"

Therefore, you are told you are speeding, you cannot challenge the calibration of the device, you cannot challenge the working condition of the camera, and according to that paragraph you cannot even challenge whether the device that took the reading is an approved device.

What the hell is that about ?

Finally, if anyone knows how to understand this paragraph, maybe they could give me some advice to pass on..

the final part of the Act says......

"if proof of the offence involves proof of the speed at which a person (whether the accused or another person) was driving, the uncorroborated evidence of one witness stating his opinion as to that speed shall not be accepted as proof of that speed."


The Garda was by herself working when she the reading was taken. Like I said, my friend didn;t challenge it on the roadside, but doesn't agree with the reading. However, I wonder could he challenge the summons on the basis that he and the Garda are in conflict with the reading, and the Garda does not have a second witness to corroborate that she actually showed the correct reading to the driver.

Basically my problem with all this, is that my friend has to now make a choice.

a. Pay the fixed fee fine, and take two penalty points, even though he does not believe he broke the law

or

b. Await a court date (which if it is over 28 days, he waives his right to accept the fixed fee), go into the court hamstrung by the provisions of the Act as set out above, and possibly face losing the case, whereby he will get a larger fine, and four penalty points, along with having to pay case fees to his own solicitor, and possibly the states fees.

When i brought this up with the Guard, he said that this had already been challenged (i remembered the challenge), and while the District and Circuit Courts had ruled in favour of the person challenging the speed gun, the High Court ruled in favour of the Gardai.

He told me that my friend could challenge it in the Supreme Court if he liked, but obviously risked huge fees if he lost.

Do people think this is fair ?

Should people accept being incriminated by a device that does not legally have to even be in working order ?

Opinions please.

(sorry for the post lenght, but I had to give people as much detail as possible )
 


Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
Surely and in the name of God in this day and age car manufactures should be made to design cars that cannot exceed 60mph?

60mph is a mile a minute and IIRC 88ft per second! :shock:

I think any vehicle designed for travel on public roads should not be capable of exceeding this limit anyway.

Speed kills. :evil:
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
Catalpa said:
Surely and in the name of God in this day and age car manufactures should be made to design cars that cannot exceed 60mph?

60mph is a mile a minute and IIRC 88ft per second! :shock:

I think any vehicle designed for travel on public roads should not be capable of exceeding this limit anyway.

Speed kills. :evil:
I agree with you there Catalpa, but that is not the issue of the thread. That is an issue for a different thread.

The issue under examination here is ...

should a person be expected to accept a conviction based on the reading of a device which, according to the law need not even be in working order ?
 

Catalpa

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2004
Messages
10,257
rockofcashel said:
Catalpa said:
Surely and in the name of God in this day and age car manufactures should be made to design cars that cannot exceed 60mph?

60mph is a mile a minute and IIRC 88ft per second! :shock:

I think any vehicle designed for travel on public roads should not be capable of exceeding this limit anyway.

Speed kills. :evil:
I agree with you there Catalpa, but that is not the issue of the thread. That is an issue for a different thread.

The issue under examination here is ...

should a person be expected to accept a conviction based on the reading of a device which, according to the law need not even be in working order ?
No would be my opinion.

No doubt about it though the Traffic Laws are a mess! :?
 

Zhirkov

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
112
Dear God Catalpa, 60 mph isn't a ridiculous speed. Anyway, if you'd read the post properly, you see the lad was doing 64kph or 40 mph. 40 mph used to be the limit in 60 kph zones, so if true, it sounds like a really borderline case.
In the UK you're generally allowed 3mph plus 10% of the speed limit above the limit. So in a 40 mph zone you'd get away with 47 mph.
Sounds like he met a right cow
 

Dubliner

Active member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
128
rockofcashel said:
The issue under examination here is ...

should a person be expected to accept a conviction based on the reading of a device which, according to the law need not even be in working order ?
I think that the issue is a matter of conscience.

The OP does not say why the driver felt he was not exceeding the limit. Was this feeling based on having observed the reading on his speedometer? Given that most speedos are set to over-read a bit, it probably would have been indicating about 70kph if he was doing 64. A big enough visual difference to notice.

If he he was breaking the law, he should accept the conviction & should not try to get away it on a technicality.
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
Dubliner said:
rockofcashel said:
The issue under examination here is ...

should a person be expected to accept a conviction based on the reading of a device which, according to the law need not even be in working order ?
I think that the issue is a matter of conscience.

The OP does not say why the driver felt he was not exceeding the limit. Was this feeling based on having observed the reading on his speedometer? Given that most speedos are set to over-read a bit, it probably would have been indicating about 70kph if he was doing 64. A big enough visual difference to notice.

If he he was breaking the law, he should accept the conviction & should not try to get away it on a technicality.

The difficulty is not whether or not its a matter of conscience Dubliner, its a matter of law.

Its not even a matter of whether the Guard was a cow or not, though I did meet her at the station, and she wasn't the friendliest (funny considering she was on triple time), its a matter of law.

I couldn't honestly believe it, but the Road Traffic actually says, the device on which a person is convicted i.e. is an electronic device, and "and it shall not be necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order"

The thing could be in bits, and technically, you cannot challenge its reading.

I think I read a story of the Daily Star once looking at this subject, and they clocked a cow moving at 35 mph.

As far as Zhirkovs calibration conundrum goes, legally it needed be calibrated at all.

Acoording to the way the Garda told me the machine worked, a Guard can concievably show a whole series of drivers, a reading that was taken from someone else... and you cannot challenge them on it

This, IMO, is no grounds for convicting someone. A person on 10 points could lose their license, possibly their job, on the basis of a piece of equipment that does not work.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
rockofcashel said:
Should people accept being incriminated by a device that does not legally have to even be in working order ?
The ideal situation would be for the Gardai to have equipment, regularly inspected (and a written record thereof), that prints out a record of the speed recorded, time of day, etc.

Even more ideally, it would incorporate visual evidence that the car in question was the one recorded doing a certain speed.

Problem is, we are some way from having such an ideal system, and I don't think that the rest of Europe is miles ahead of us. I think all countries rely on systems that to some extent rely on the honesty and diligence of police officers.

It's easy to point to the shortcomings of the current system but apart from what I outlined above, what is the alternative? That we allow any and all speeders to put Gardai to proof and force them to prove - beyond a reasonable doubt - that on one particular day at one particular time, one particular piece of equipment was in perfect working order?

That comes close to asking the Gardai to prove a negative (i.e. prove that the equipment wasn't faulty), and in the context of our national crisis of road deaths and injuries, I don't think it's too much to have faith in our police that they don't, as a matter of reasonable doubt, get things wrong and don't use decrepit equipment.

Certainly, when it comes to other summary offences before the District Courts, the evidence of Gardai is taken as something close to gospel unless there is evidence that they were mistaken or had it in for someone.

Why should road traffic offences be carved out as different from all the other summary offences? Why should a youngfella on an assualt charge go down on the eyewitness evidence of a Garda but the rich driver with his non-legal aid solicitor and barrister gets to treat the Garda as being prone to error or malicious prosecution?

Like I said, I see the problems with the current system but I don't see a less f*cked-up realistic alternative.
 

Zhirkov

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
112
rockofcashel said:
Dubliner said:
rockofcashel said:
The issue under examination here is ...

should a person be expected to accept a conviction based on the reading of a device which, according to the law need not even be in working order ?
I think that the issue is a matter of conscience.

The OP does not say why the driver felt he was not exceeding the limit. Was this feeling based on having observed the reading on his speedometer? Given that most speedos are set to over-read a bit, it probably would have been indicating about 70kph if he was doing 64. A big enough visual difference to notice.

If he he was breaking the law, he should accept the conviction & should not try to get away it on a technicality.

The difficulty is not whether or not its a matter of conscience Dubliner, its a matter of law.

Its not even a matter of whether the Guard was a cow or not, though I did meet her at the station, and she wasn't the friendliest (funny considering she was on triple time), its a matter of law.

I couldn't honestly believe it, but the Road Traffic actually says, the device on which a person is convicted i.e. is an electronic device, and "and it shall not be necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order"

The thing could be in bits, and technically, you cannot challenge its reading.

I think I read a story of the Daily Star once looking at this subject, and they clocked a cow moving at 35 mph.

As far as Zhirkovs calibration conundrum goes, legally it needed be calibrated at all.

Acoording to the way the Garda told me the machine worked, a Guard can concievably show a whole series of drivers, a reading that was taken from someone else... and you cannot challenge them on it

This, IMO, is no grounds for convicting someone. A person on 10 points could lose their license, possibly their job, on the basis of a piece of equipment that does not work.
I believe that they changed the law some time ago so that the guards wouldn't have to demonstrate that their machines were functioning properly. They did this because the guards were unable to confirm that they were, indeed, working properly and this was having an adverse effect on their conviction rate. Cool, huh?
The same philosophy applies when dealing with the government in other areas.
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
The thing is Libero, we do have the equipment. Speed Cameras, as opposed to speed guns, print a photograph, and this details the speed at which the picture was taken. That is documentary proof.

The difficulty I had, was that the Act specifically outlines that

a. The speed gun need not be accurate

b. need not be working properly

c. need not even be an approved type of camera for the job its used for

as well as that, a Garda should not be able to offer an opinion on the speed of the car, unless they have corroborating evidence from another party.

And by the way, every supermarket in the country has an electronic scanner that can print out details of grocery items (not the till, a hand-held scanner for Shelf Edge labelling). Also credit card machines can print reciepts.

If you are trying to convince me that a speed gun could not have this easily incorporated into it, then pull the other one, it has bells on it.
 

Dubliner

Active member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
128
rockofcashel said:
The difficulty is not whether or not its a matter of conscience Dubliner, its a matter of law.
You have not answered the key question: why did he feel he was not exceeding the limit, was he using 'the force'?:twisted:

Safe driving is fundamentally a matter of conscience.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
rockofcashel said:
The thing is Libero, we do have the equipment. Speed Cameras, as opposed to speed guns, print a photograph, and this details the speed at which the picture was taken. That is documentary proof.
Yes, speed cameras rely even less on Garda input and, as such, are less open to human error or malicious behaviour.

But speed cameras - and indeed any equipment - is still wide open to challenge for allegedly not being accurate and in working order and suitable for the stretch of road in question.

Read back on the allowances made in the legislation (in the context of speed guns) and you'll see that they are also necessary for speed cameras. Unless that is, you can somehow tell us that speed cameras are, unlike speed guns, immune from error or breakdown or poor calibration.

Besides, fixed speed cameras are generally not easily moved and as flexible as Garda-operated speed guns. Drive in many European countries and you'll see the use of speed guns.

rockofcashel said:
as well as that, a Garda should not be able to offer an opinion on the speed of the car, unless they have corroborating evidence from another party.
When it comes to rules of evidence and having a system that favours the accused, I'm as liberal as they come. Time and again, I've defended protections for defendants whether it be on these boards, in social company or in the professional legal arena.
And there sure isn't a shortage of people in Ireland who believe, very noisily, that criminal defendants have it too easy.
Hey, I even call for scrapping most of the Offences Against the State Acts, which is quite a bit more than most non-republicans will ever do.

But where on earth will we be if Gardai have to corroborate their sworn eyewitness evidence?

Do you think this should apply to all criminal offences, or just road traffic offences? What do you think it will do for rates of conviction if Gardai have to somehow provide other evidence that they saw what they saw?

I can only suggest that you go down a local District Court sitting on criminal matters and consider how more dangerous and violent a society ours will be if Garda evidence is routinely distrusted.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
Of course most identification evidence requires that the trial judge issue any jury with a corroboration warning.

But rockofcashel seems to be demanding, if only in a road traffic context, a corroboration requirement. And I think that's crazy.
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
If you think that's bad, the very same provisions were put into the eVoting Act.

If the Machine shows 100 voters, and the marked register shows 200, the machine is assumed to be correct.

I'm very surprised that he was done for 64km/h as the norm is +10%. How far out the N24 was she positioned?

She would have been more use from a safety perspective if she had been on the 50km/h section of the Ring Road.

I blame the Councillors though. 60km/h is way too slow for that stretch of road. The 60km/h limit should begin at Mordaunts IMHO
 

Zhirkov

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
112
SPN said:
I blame the Councillors though. 60km/h is way too slow for that stretch of road.
Which is probably why the nice garda set her trap there
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
7,998
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
SPN said:
If you think that's bad, the very same provisions were put into the eVoting Act.

If the Machine shows 100 voters, and the marked register shows 200, the machine is assumed to be correct.

I'm very surprised that he was done for 64km/h as the norm is +10%. How far out the N24 was she positioned?

She would have been more use from a safety perspective if she had been on the 50km/h section of the Ring Road.

I blame the Councillors though. 60km/h is way too slow for that stretch of road. The 60km/h limit should begin at Mordaunts IMHO
She was parked at the gates of Bulmers... going away from the town, into the open country, less than 100 yards from the 100 kph speed limit area.

Libero, the corroborating evidence bit is ok with me, that would be a real technicality.

But for the life of me, how can you possibly defend the law that says the equipment used does not have to be in working order.

If the person was doing 20 kph, and the speed gun showed 120 kph, that person could lose their licence, and possibly livelihood.

That simply cannot be right
 

Zhirkov

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2005
Messages
112
From the examiner 1 year ago

2,000 speeding prosecutions are likely to be dropped

By John Breslin
CLOSE to 2,000 prosecutions for speeding are likely to be dropped following a High Court ruling over laser speed guns.The prosecutions were initiated before the law was changed to close a loophole that emerged when a court ruled a motorist should not be prosecuted as there was no permanent record of the speed.

At the time of the High Court case in February, it was unclear how many prosecutions would be abandoned because of the loophole. However, it is believed up to 2,000 motorists are likely to escape prosecution.

The cases are still listed for hearing, but when they come before the District Court no evidence will be produced. While the Government has said it believes any loophole in the law has been closed by a new road traffic act that came into law at the end of January, some legal observers suggest this could also face challenges.

The 2,000 cases were begun before the end of January but not dealt with by the courts.

However, those who were convicted for speeding offences prior to the end of January would have grounds for appealing their conviction.

The High Court ruled following the prosecution of a motorist from Longford who was caught driving at 63mph in a 40mph zone.

The motorist fought the prosecution on the grounds that the laser gun used to detect the offence did not produce a written receipt or other permanent record, as is required under the 2002 Road Traffic Act.
In other words the guard's word is good enough while the motorist's is worthless
 

Dubliner

Active member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
128
rockofcashel said:
She was parked at the gates of Bulmers... going away from the town, into the open country, less than 100 yards from the 100 kph speed limit area.
So, your friend was approaching a busy goods exit at a speed he felt was under the speed limit? Did he know what the speed limit was before he was informed by the Garda?
 

civic_critic

Active member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
119
rockofcashel said:
I think I read a story of the Daily Star once looking at this subject, and they clocked a cow moving at 35 mph.
Was it coming from the direction of the slaughterhouse?
 

SPN

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2004
Messages
16,845
Dubliner said:
rockofcashel said:
She was parked at the gates of Bulmers... going away from the town, into the open country, less than 100 yards from the 100 kph speed limit area.
So, your friend was approaching a busy goods exit at a speed he felt was under the speed limit? Did he know what the speed limit was before he was informed by the Garda?
It is NOT a "busy goods exit" on a Bank Holiday Monday.

:roll: :roll: :roll:
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top