# disqualified from driving.



## barcelona (29 Jan 2008)

Hello people,
                 I would like some advice please.My friend was stopped at a checkpoint for tax and insurance check.He did not have insurance or licence with him.He did not produce it in time so got a summons and needless to say got to court in the afternoon instead of the morning time as expected.When he asked he was told he was banned from driving for a year.
       Since then he has been using taxis for work as he is not office based.He went to his solicitor who put him in touch with a barrister who went back to court with him to plead his case.The judge did not give him a second and basically he is looking at a date in May.
                                                                       He was fully insured at all times except against being a danger to himself.Is there anything he can do as he will have to tell his employers soon.This has been going on since before Christmas.
                               Thanks for any advice.


----------



## ClubMan (29 Jan 2008)

barcelona said:


> Is there anything he can do


Surely his solicitor has advised him on what his options are? Sounds cut and dried to me. Banned until May at least and probably for the full 12 months.


----------



## Satanta (29 Jan 2008)

barcelona said:


> He was fully insured at all times except against being a danger to himself.


While he was insured, you say he "didn't have his insurance with him". Does this mean he failed to have his insurance disc on display (an offence) or just didn't have his Certificate of Insurance with him?

He didn't have his license with him (an offence) and was asked to produce this in a given time. He failed to do so. He was then given a summons to appear in court, which he failed to do. 

I really don't see any thing to suggest his sentance should be lessened in all that. He hasn't been unfairly treated (he failed to comply with every request, including the initial offence one of having his license on him [and potentially displaying his insurance disc but academic given the other offences]) so I really don't see any come back.

Just my opinion though. Far from a legal view on the situation.


----------



## rochs (29 Jan 2008)

I'm sorry for your friend because he needs his licence to get to work. 
however he should have been more responsible at the time when he was first stopped by the Garda. he appears to be very irresponsible first off he was late in producing his Insurance and Licence and then he was late for court. Is it any wonder the Judge did not give a hearing.

I wish him the well in May unfortunately i would not be too optimistic.

Good Luck.

rochs


----------



## Moral Ethos (29 Jan 2008)

He should be able to put the ban on hold until a full appeal hearing in May. He has 14 days to lodge an appeal.


----------



## gebbel (29 Jan 2008)

barcelona said:


> My friend was stopped at a checkpoint for tax and insurance check.He did not have insurance or licence with him.He did not produce it in time so got a summons and needless to say got to court in the afternoon instead of the morning time as expected.When he asked he was told he was banned from driving for a year.
> 
> .


 
Your friend has paid the ultimate price for a wrong that was all of his own making. Then he does'nt show up to court on time....baffling. He should take the hit like a man, tough and all that will be. This "getting a barrister" in to try and get someone off on a point of law annoys me. He did the crime now do the time.


----------



## Moral Ethos (29 Jan 2008)

Would you like the full rigours of the law applied to you the next time you do 51 km/h in town?


----------



## gebbel (29 Jan 2008)

Moral Ethos said:


> Would you like the full rigours of the law applied to you the next time you do 51 km/h in town?


 
No, of course you would feel hard done by in that case. But this is different. This guys drives around without insurance and his licence, then does'nt produce them in time, then shows up late for court. A lot of mistakes. You can't have much sympathy for that.


----------



## mercman (29 Jan 2008)

Serves him right. Should be put off the road for 5 years.


----------



## Moral Ethos (29 Jan 2008)

Lest yee without sin, etc etc.


----------



## Copper (29 Jan 2008)

> Serves him right. Should be put off the road for 5 years.


 


> Your friend has paid the ultimate price for a wrong that was all of his own making. Then he does'nt show up to court on time....baffling. He should take the hit like a man, tough and all that will be. This "getting a barrister" in to try and get someone off on a point of law annoys me. He did the crime now do the time.


 


> You can't have much sympathy for that.


 

He was insured and had a licence, he just forgot to produce and was late for court.  You reckon that warrants a five year ban? Where did you pull that figure out of?

Some people are absent minded, or just chronically unlucky/terrible at timekeeping and keeping dates.  Personally I could have sympathy for that.


----------



## Purple (29 Jan 2008)

His "crimes" seem to have been committed after he was stopped; they are not connected with driving offences. Therefore I think his punishment should not be in a form that penalises his ability to drive. 
He was stupid but he was insured and licensed, why the ban?
If he was drunk, speeding or uninsured it would be different... but he wasn’t.


----------



## Moral Ethos (29 Jan 2008)

Failure to produce insurance will always result in a no insurance charge. The guy missed court so he was convicted in absentia. The standard punishment for no insurance is a ban.


----------



## RS2K (30 Jan 2008)

I have a degee of sympathy, as your pal was insured, but the catalogue of errors he  performed means that he'll have to do whatever the legal system tells him to.


----------



## truthseeker (30 Jan 2008)

it certainly does seem harsh but if it was going to have such an impact on his life why didnt he get himself in gear and produce the relevant documents when he was supposed to or show up in court when he was supposed to?

Quite frankly it sounds like he just wasnt bothered, he had every opportunity to resolve the situation and he didnt take those opportunities - i think its difficult to have sympathy for someone who has only themselves to blame.


----------



## Stifster (30 Jan 2008)

The Judge was probably right to give the punishment he did, after all when the case was called there was no evidence to contradict the garda.

However, if he had turned up, produced his licence and insurance certificate he would have simply got a fine. 

I assume that the date in May is an appeal in the Circuit Court where the ban will more than likely be set aside, he'll still have a painful legal bill to remind him to comply in future.

I'm not 100% sure which ones but i know that some punishments remain in place in relation to driving offences pending the Appeal. It may be when an Appeal is brought more than 14 days after the original hearing date


----------



## csirl (30 Jan 2008)

Judges take a very poor view of people who fail to show up in court when summonsed. An appeal is only worthwhile if it has a chance of sucess, so not worth paying for a barrister unless there is a reasonable chance of success. I'd guess that the fact that he was "forgetful" on 3 occasions (1. "forgot" license, 2. "forgot" to go to station & 3. "forgot" to turn up in court) works against him - looks like a pattern of behaviour/modus operandi for you friend rather than a once off mistake - to someone who doesnt know him e.g. Judge, it appears that he has utter contempt for the law.


----------



## Stifster (30 Jan 2008)

csirl said:


> Judges take a very poor view of people who fail to show up in court when summonsed. An appeal is only worthwhile if it has a chance of sucess, so not worth paying for a barrister unless there is a reasonable chance of success. I'd guess that the fact that he was "forgetful" on 3 occasions (1. "forgot" license, 2. "forgot" to go to station & 3. "forgot" to turn up in court) works against him - looks like a pattern of behaviour/modus operandi for you friend rather than a once off mistake - to someone who doesnt know him e.g. Judge, it appears that he has utter contempt for the law.


 
That is relevant in certain circumstances but when it comes ot the Appeal, if the garda sees the documentation, then he will probably consent to it. He appears to be innocent of the charges so the conviction should be set aside.

There should be something done though to take into account the waste of the courts and garda's time. Heavier fine or something.


----------



## jhegarty (30 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> His "crimes" seem to have been committed after he was stopped; they are not connected with driving offences. Therefore I think his punishment should not be in a form that penalises his ability to drive.
> He was stupid but he was insured and licensed, why the ban?
> If he was drunk, speeding or uninsured it would be different... but he wasn’t.



I don't think he even committed a crime... (except not having his license with him , which is a very minor offense) ... he just didn't put on a defense to what the guard accused him of , either at the station or the court...

he should be trying to get the ban suspended until an appeal (which he will win if represented, and doesn't get a cranky judge)....


----------



## phil1147 (30 Jan 2008)

i would not agree to this, you must at all times display your tax, insurance and NCT cert for certain cars. If you do not have the above on display it is against the law. Also the guy had 10 days to produce his insurance and failed to do so, does this mean he really wasnt insured because i feel 10 days is enough time to drive down to the local Gardai station and show it!!! No judge should give cases like this even a second as the whole country would be claiming that they "really were insured" at the time. Sorry but the law is the law!!!


----------



## phil1147 (30 Jan 2008)

My friend was stopped at a checkpoint for tax and insurance check.He did not have insurance or licence with him.He did not produce it in time


----------



## Yachtie (30 Jan 2008)

I think that this is a very unfortunate outcome but serves him right. I can understand that somebody forgets their license (there was a long debate about this here on AAM recently) but how can you forget your insurance disk? Furthermore, if you can produce both, how can you forget to pop into Garda station and present them? And to top it all off, who does this person thinks he is to turn up in court half a day late? Britney Spears?

I probably sound harsh being one of the people who are utterly anal about those things (making sure that I have my DL on me and that my insurance disk is put in it's sleeve the same day I receive it in the post) but the only thing I'd say your friend can do is acquire some timekeeping skills and respect for the law. From the legal POV, I wouldn't know as I am not a legal professional.


----------



## mathepac (30 Jan 2008)

Purple said:


> His "crimes" seem to have been committed after he was stopped; they are not connected with driving offences.



I don't agree. As far as the court was concerned he had not produced insurance, therefore he was driving without insurance, thus a ban.


----------



## Stifster (30 Jan 2008)

phil1147 said:


> i would not agree to this, you must at all times display your tax, insurance and NCT cert for certain cars. If you do not have the above on display it is against the law. Also the guy had 10 days to produce his insurance and failed to do so, does this mean he really wasnt insured because i feel 10 days is enough time to drive down to the local Gardai station and show it!!! No judge should give cases like this even a second as the whole country would be claiming that they "really were insured" at the time. Sorry but the law is the law!!!


 


> I assume that the date in May is an appeal in the Circuit Court where the ban will more than likely be set aside, he'll still have a painful legal bill to remind him to comply in future.


 
You seem to miss the point that he _was_ insured at the time. Our legal system entitles people to appeal a conviction but (unless legally aided)they have to pay for it. I bet he won't be doing it again after forking out something around a grand for this oversight.

He did fail to produce and should still pay a fine for that.


----------



## phil1147 (30 Jan 2008)

Stifster said:


> You seem to miss the point that he _was_ insured at the time. Our legal system entitles people to appeal a conviction but (unless legally aided)they have to pay for it. I bet he won't be doing it again after forking out something around a grand for this oversight.
> 
> He did fail to produce and should still pay a fine for that.


 

Was he really insured?, if he was then i dont see why he wouldnt have produced it in the Garda station within the 10 days. 

I would take it that the guy probably was not insured re: same.


----------



## Marie (30 Jan 2008)

There are two aspects to this; 'the law' and 'enforcement of the law'.  Law enforcement involves monitoring the situation to ensure that the laws in place are being observed.  

This man failed to demonstrate that he was living/acting within the law.  That evokes the penalty.  The situation in question is not one where the 'rights' and 'wrongs' of the situation are at issue.  If that were so the whole kit-and-kaboodle would grind to a halt as every minor transgression would have to be 'analysed'.

I think it was the philosopher Isiah Berlin who wrote that you can't have freedom and justice..........they are incompatible.  He also - wisely in my view - held that the justice system is neither personal nor does it involve truth.  Punishment, he said, gives a signal to society at large.

Your friend (and his friends, and many of his friends' friends!) will carry their documents and respond to the processes of the law for awhile don't you think?  Job done!


----------



## barcelona (31 Jan 2008)

Excellent responses.A little update.He was stopped at a checkpoint and was told to produce at his local station.HE DID.He went and showed his licence and insurance.He also had the correct discs on his windscreen when stopped.
                    The next thing he knows is he gets a summons for failing to produce.This is the court date he missed.
                                                        So his only mistake was being late for his court date.Fair enough.He will have to explain his situationto his job next week as he cannot carry out his full duties.The garda accepts he came to the station.
                                I think the blame can be shared although that is no use here.I suppose my question is if he knew somebody in the court system would he be able to get a quick hearing allowing for the fact that the garda accepts he did produce at the time.
                                                                     Great reading people.


----------



## dereko1969 (31 Jan 2008)

if he had the correct discs why was he asked to produce his insurance details at the garda station?


----------



## Guest127 (31 Jan 2008)

From this weeks Dundalk Argus.....Lady involved in accident left the scene of accident because she did not have insurance, tax or nct. 
Fined €250 for hit and run charge 'lesser' offences struck out relating to insurance and tax.
the legal system bristles with inconsistancies.


----------



## Stifster (31 Jan 2008)

dereko1969 said:


> if he had the correct discs why was he asked to produce his insurance details at the garda station?


 
The fact that you have a disc isn't proof that you have insurance. The law states that you can be asked to produce the rest of the letter (the certificate) that the disc came with.

Which when you think about it isn't anything like 100% proof as you could have cancelled your policy the day before but still have that paperwork.

Barca, the answer to your last question is probably not. It also depends which District he was convicted in.


----------



## mathepac (31 Jan 2008)

barcelona said:


> Hello people,
> I would like some advice please.My friend was stopped at a checkpoint for tax and insurance check.He did not have insurance or licence with him.He did not produce it in time so got a summons and needless to say got to court in the afternoon instead of the morning time as expected.When he asked he was told he was banned from driving for a year.
> Since then he has been using taxis for work as he is not office based.He went to his solicitor who put him in touch with a barrister who went back to court with him to plead his case.The judge did not give him a second and basically he is looking at a date in May.
> He was fully insured at all times except against being a danger to himself.Is there anything he can do as he will have to tell his employers soon.This has been going on since before Christmas.
> Thanks for any advice.



This is version 1 of your friend's story as relayed by you here. Why ask for advice on version 1 if the newer version is the correct one?


----------



## Ravima (31 Jan 2008)

why did he wait till now to do anything? It is a simple question. He had 14 days to lodge appeal.

he needs to consult a good solicitor now.

there may be a way to appeal to High Court immediately to get permission to lodge appeal to Circuit Court even though the normal time span is gone. 

I am assuming that he had a licence and was insured, but was either too lazy or thought that it was a 'bit of a laugh' so to speak being summonsed and giving the two fingers to the judge in district court.

The present situation cannot continue. He is currently disqualified and therefore if caught driving, his insurance is INVALID and he could face a prison sentence. people must respect the law and the courts. the judge/system will give everyone a chance to explain themselves.

I think that his best excuse now is to plead with some solicitor that he was a total eejit  and make that case to High Court judge, with whatever grovelling apology he can make. He cannot say he was not an eejit.


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2008)

Ravima said:


> I think that his best excuse now is to plead with some solicitor that he was a total eejit  and make that case to High Court judge, with whatever grovelling apology he can make. He cannot say he was not an eejit.


Plead insanity?


----------



## jhegarty (31 Jan 2008)

Ravima said:


> The present situation cannot continue. He is currently disqualified and therefore if caught driving, his insurance is INVALID and he could face a prison sentence. people must respect the law and the courts. the judge/system will give everyone a chance to explain themselves.




The OP clearly said his friend has been using taxis since the ban....


----------



## aircobra19 (31 Jan 2008)

5yr ban seems harsh to me. Considering what people get who commit far worse crimes.


----------



## ClubMan (31 Jan 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> 5yr ban seems harsh to me. Considering what people get who commit far worse crimes.


It might be. If that was actually the case...


barcelona said:


> Hello people,
> I would like some advice please.My friend was stopped at a checkpoint for tax and insurance check.He did not have insurance or licence with him.He did not produce it in time so got a summons and needless to say got to court in the afternoon instead of the morning time as expected.When he asked he was told he was banned from driving for a year.


----------



## aircobra19 (31 Jan 2008)

My bad. I misread another comment. Even a year seems harsh for being a lazy lump.


----------



## Stifster (31 Jan 2008)

he got a year for showing contempt to the court in the Judges eyes. They usually hand down the maximum to no shows.


----------



## gebbel (1 Feb 2008)

barcelona said:


> Hello people,
> I would like some advice please.My friend was stopped at a checkpoint for tax and insurance check.He did not have insurance or licence with him.He did not produce it in time........


 


barcelona said:


> A little update.He was stopped at a checkpoint and was told to produce at his local station.HE DID.He went and showed his licence and insurance.He also had the correct discs on his windscreen when stopped.
> The next thing he knows is he gets a summons for failing to produce.This is the court date he missed.
> So his only mistake was being late for his court date..


 
Sorry I'm a bit confused so can you please clarify: Why was your friend asked to produce his licence and insurance? You say he had the correct discs on the windscreen when stopped? Did he have his driving licence with him? If the answer to any of the previous 2 questions is no then his only mistake was not only being late for court, was it?


----------



## Leo (1 Feb 2008)

gebbel said:


> Did he have his driving licence with him?


 
You have already quoted the answer to this one!


----------



## taponavillus (2 Feb 2008)

he can go to the district court and ask for a  extension of time to appeal. he then appeals to the circuit court. he should bring his documents this time. once he has lodged his ap[peal he can drive


----------



## phil1147 (4 Feb 2008)

barcelona said:


> Excellent responses.A little update.He was stopped at a checkpoint and was told to produce at his local station.HE DID.He went and showed his licence and insurance.He also had the correct discs on his windscreen when stopped.
> The next thing he knows is he gets a summons for failing to produce.This is the court date he missed.
> So his only mistake was being late for his court date.Fair enough.He will have to explain his situationto his job next week as he cannot carry out his full duties.The garda accepts he came to the station.
> I think the blame can be shared although that is no use here.I suppose my question is if he knew somebody in the court system would he be able to get a quick hearing allowing for the fact that the garda accepts he did produce at the time.
> Great reading people.


 

Sorry i thought he was NOT insured. The EXACT same thing happened to me. I also produced within 10 days. I then got a date to go to court, i ignored this thinking it was a mistake. I then got a letter saying i had a 1 year disqualification. I immediately went to the Garda Station and how this was possible as i had produced. They had a look in the book and said i wasnt there, i then asked them to look thoroughly because i DID produce. After about 10 minutes the officer DID find it, it had been written tiny in the corner of a page (rediculous carry on) I then got the Gard to write me a full letter of explanation for me to appeal the case, go to court again and show the letter & photocopies of my Isurance and license etc.

Taking peoples details when they produce it in the book in my opinion is the typical LACKS A DAISY approach to the public sector in Ireland. This system should be bullet proof. Hand written & entered into a digital database.

Hope this helps your friend.


----------



## aircobra19 (4 Feb 2008)

Scan a finger print or two and then there should be no poroblem finding it. 

I agree its a pathetic the ways its done. Completely unprofessional.


----------



## csirl (4 Feb 2008)

> Since then he has been using taxis for work as he is not office based.


 
One piece of information we are missing. Was he insured to use his car for work purposes or did he just have regular car insurance? Regular car insurance only covers for "occasional work usage", so its possible that he did have insurance, but not the correct insurance for using the car for work on a regular basis?


----------



## barcelona (10 Mar 2008)

Alls well that ends well.He was in court and is back driving.The garda was there and it took two minutes.My friend did not say a word.
                                                                                So overall if you are producing at a station note the exact time and details so they could look at the station video if you got a summons for not producing.


----------



## shellstar (11 Mar 2008)

Just a quick point about producing documents to Garda now. My husband had to produce his licence and insurance at our local station (someone crashed into him so he was making a report to Gardai) and they gave him a receipt dated, signed and stamped to say he had produced and they told him to hold onto this as proof he had done so. Not sure if this is practice in all stations. This was back in January.


----------

