# Prosecuted - Dangerous Driving



## Niallymac (9 Nov 2005)

A friend has been summoned to appear in court next week for dangerous driving. The incident occured some time back, when after overtaking another vehicle at the end of a dual carriageway (where the two lanes merge into one), the driver he overtook called the Gardai. While stuck in traffic in Gorey, a Garda car approached him and questioned him about the incident. He explained what had happened and assumed that was the end of it.

He is now being prosecuted for dangerous driving on the evidence of the driver he overtook. No other witnesses apart from the two passengers he had in his own car.

How can he be proecuted on the evidence of another driver alone ?  What qualifies this other driver to determine whether in fact his driving was dangerous. If it is as easy as this I could spend all day long reporting guys who cut me up and get them all prosecuted. Its one persons word versus another, unless of course there are witnesses involved.  

He genuinely feels he wasn't driving in any way dangerously, but in fact the car on his inside sped up and then wouldn't yield to let him in at the end of the double lane, leaving hime with the option of hitting his breaks hard and maybe causing an accident, or completing his manoeuvre and overtaking.

Should he bother contesting this with a barrister or is he likely to be done on the say so of this other driver ?


----------



## Vanilla (9 Nov 2005)

If he genuinely believes he wasn't driving dangerously, then yes, he should contest it. He doesnt need a barrister, but a solicitor. Will the passengers who were in the car testify for him? Has he made a statement? If this is in court next week, he should get a solicitor immediately to act for him. If it is being contested, it is likely his solicitor will need to apply for an adjournment so as to properly prepare the case, get copies of any statements ( from the complainant ) and speak to the witnesses. At the very least, where a solicitor represents you on a dangerous driving charge, the guards will routinely let you plead to a lesser charge of careless or driving without due care and attention, therefore less risk of being put off the road, endorsements, and fine.


----------



## RainyDay (9 Nov 2005)

Niallymac said:
			
		

> How can he be proecuted on the evidence of another driver alone ?  What qualifies this other driver to determine whether in fact his driving was dangerous. If it is as easy as this I could spend all day long reporting guys who cut me up and get them all prosecuted. Its one persons word versus another, unless of course there are witnesses involved.


What's the alternative, Nially? Are you saying there should only be prosecutions if a Garda witnesses it? If you saw a really bad piece of dangerous driving, would you not feel that the Gardai should follow up. Remember that he hasn't been convicted (yet). Any conviction would only follow when a judge hears both sides and makes his decision on who is telling the truth.


			
				Vanilla said:
			
		

> At the very least, where a solicitor represents you on a dangerous driving charge, the guards will routinely let you plead to a lesser charge of careless or driving without due care and attention, therefore less risk of being put off the road, endorsements, and fine.


Hi Vanilla - To an outsider, this seems absolutely ludicrous! Is there any good reason why engaging a solicitor should result in a reduction in the seriousness of the charge?


----------



## bond-007 (10 Nov 2005)

Rainday said:
			
		

> Hi Vanilla - To an outsider, this seems absolutely ludicrous! Is there any good reason why engaging a solicitor should result in a reduction in the seriousness of the charge?


 
Must be the good working relationship solictors and the Gardai have


----------



## spaceman (10 Nov 2005)

This brings back memories for me, about thirty years ago when I lived in Dublin, I was turning right from the main road (30 mph limit) into a side turning, the car in the oncoming lane was in my judgement a safe distance away, but as I started the turn the guy flashed his lights and kept blowing his horn, he then screeeched to a halt, got out of his car and ran after me. I stopped and we had an argument. Some days later I was contacted by the police and told I was being charged with dangerous driving (on the other drivers word) so  I made a statement to the police giving my side of the story. I defended myself in court, and when I was called the other driver said that he did not think that I looked like the driver he had the argument with. I will always remember the words of the police prosecutor when he asked me to explain "why would the other driver complain to the police if you had not done what he said"
    When the judge heard the evidence he threw the case out, I feel that even though I was driving safely and in the right I could have lost the case except for the other driver saying that he gave me plenty of warning by flashing his lights and blowing his horn (in a 30mph zone) I have often wondered how the decision is made to prosecute in cases like this? does anybody have any insight. IANAL but Dangerous driving is too serious from an insurance and driving record point of view, If I had to go to court now I would definitely be represented by a solicitor


----------



## Vanilla (10 Nov 2005)

> Is there any good reason why engaging a solicitor should result in a reduction in the seriousness of the charge?


Well, yes of course! First of all, if you defend yourself, you will not have the same experience or indeed knowledge as a solicitor. You will invariably not know the simplest procedures in the district court, you will not know the best way to present your case, you will not know how to effectively cross-examine a witness, you will not know the case law, you may not even know the penalties etc Your solicitor will know all of this, and the guards know they know it. So if the guards are prosecuting you for dangerous driving, but on the facts it seems that if the offence is challenged in court then it may very well be more akin to careless driving than dangerous, they may well accept a plea to careless, rather than risk an acquittal entirely. Note that of course, the judge has to agree to apply the lesser charge. Of course, this will also only occur where on the facts it seems that it may be difficult to make the charge of dangerous driving stick. But this happens very frequently.


----------



## quarterfloun (10 Nov 2005)

So there is collusion between the Guards & The legal profession? They trump up the charges, the law is made complicated so Joe Soap does not understand it and in comes the Solicitor on their shiny charger (BMW M5 these days), untrumps (?) the charge back to what it should be in the first place and the winners are the courts and solicitors. Hmmm? 

How about the two drivers, any witnesses going to see the Judge, the Judge listens to the complaint and the defense and then hands out a penalty (as he should know the law and what crime has been committed.

If you are still not happy then go spend the money on experts and get Ironside or Perry Mason on the case.  

Why is the system geared at providing an income for the legal profession? It seems daft that somebody has to pay out a shed load of money to protect themselves from uncollobarated evidence from a person not trained in Road Safety who may have contributed to / caused  the crime in the first place.

Rant over - I'm back in me box


----------



## Vanilla (10 Nov 2005)

> So there is collusion between the Guards & The legal profession? They trump up the charges, the law is made complicated so Joe Soap does not understand it and in comes the Solicitor on their shiny charger (BMW M5 these days), untrumps (?) the charge back to what it should be in the first place and the winners are the courts and solicitors. Hmmm?


 
What absolute rubbish. There is NO collusion between the guards and solicitors. The inverse is the case. The guards job is to prosecute people they believe to be offenders. The solicitors job is to protect his client, and where they believe that client is innocent of a charge, to either defend the charge fully, or not. If the solicitor believes the client is not guilty of dangerous driving, but may be guilty of careless driving they will advise their client accordingly. If the guards ( and you are missing the important point here- also the JUDGE) agree, then a plea to the lesser charge may be accepted.



> How about the two drivers, any witnesses going to see the Judge, the Judge listens to the complaint and the defense and then hands out a penalty (as he should know the law and what crime has been committed.


 
Everyone has the right of audience in the district court. You don't have to pay a solicitor for their expertise, yet you seem to resent the fact that they are more expert than the ordinary joe soap. You have the right to do your own accounts, but you could employ an accountant. You have the right to treat yourself ( within limits) but you could employ a doctor. Give me a break. It seems that you think the whole system is the solicitors fault.


----------



## quarterfloun (10 Nov 2005)

"Everyone has the right of audience in the district court" You see this is why I have a big problem with the legal profession. If I am either being prosecuted or defending a case I would expect that ALL legal proceedings being done in the name of the State should be open to all citizens of the state. this behind closed doors, approach the bench, in Judges Chambers business is all wrong. If it is in court it should be out in the open. Period. (I  also think Rape cases etc should be done entirely away from a court and in comfortable, non oppressive surroundings with victim & defendants rights highly cared for - but thats another issue).

In the case of two individuals arguing - thats thier choice to instruct who they like at whatever cost. Roll on libel cases - they are a cracking read and fantastic entertainment (Thank you Archer & Coughlan specifically) As I see it no two parties should ever end up in court if they behaved like adults and worked out rational solutions. Perhaps get a solicitor to advise both parties that a particular clause would be illegal or detrimental and get a court to rubber stamp the deal.

I do not resent anybody being expert - I have absolutely no issue with that. I have a problem if the "expert" Garda goes for a charge that the "expert" solicitor gets  reduced. Why was it reducable in the first instance? If in the instance which started this thread why can an "expert" judge not work out with the "expert" Guard what the issues are without involving another "expert".

It seems to me that the guard would be guilty of bringing a case forward that is trumped up or not thought out. Either way the Guard should be sent for retraining at the States' cost. I also believe that the Judge should be "learned" enough to ascertian the facts and make a judgement based on the facts rather than rely on a 3rd party to point him in the right direction. If he does not know the laws how can he officiate.

So a solicitor protects their client. Why in this case? Both state officials (the guard & judge) should be able to determine the facts, decide what the correct crime is and punish accordingly.

I also feel that high profile fraudsters like Archer, Levitt, Aitken do not need protecting. We need protecting from them and I personally, were a solicitor, would on ethical grounds point their Crown V. business elsewhere. The same with serial killers, molesters etc. First time around I could maybe stomach defending them but a 2nd or 3rd time?

As for accountants.....well I believe individuals should be able to access a computer program on line that you input everything that spits out a statement. This program should not be creative but should ask ALL the pertinent questions and be fair to both the Tax payer and the Exchequer. The onus should be on the State to take what is rightfully theirs based on the facts presented. If the facts need to be interpreted then the State has failed and does not deserve the revenue. 

Wouldn't it be great if I could employ an accountant to manage my salary and then write the cost off against my PAYE? 

My head hurts with all these professionals that clean up cos the rules are so sodding difficult. We should not need experts we need plain English most of the time.


To summarise my issue is not with the solicitors but the system that we find thust upon us that warrants solicitors attention.








So it's not solicitors I have the problem with or their expertise but the fact that we need them in the first place for incidences like this thread.


----------



## spaceman (10 Nov 2005)

To follow on, when I defended myself the judge was very helpful and fair in explaining the rules to me, and letting me know when I was entitled to cross question the witness etc. which I did. but looking back there was a whole lot of legal stuff I would not have known plus I was emotionally involved in the case, on reflection not the smartest move to defend myself, but luckily I worked out O.K.for me. Who said "the man who defends himself has a fool for a client" Also agree with Vanilla that there is no collusion. these guys are just doing a job in the best way they can


----------



## quarterfloun (10 Nov 2005)

I was using the word collusion to illustrate my vexation at needing an expert to referee two other experts.


----------



## spaceman (10 Nov 2005)

maybe  we should use the French Inquisitorial sysyem


----------



## quarterfloun (10 Nov 2005)

lot to be said for it


----------



## CMCR (10 Nov 2005)

"How can he be prosecuted on the evidence of another driver alone? What qualifies this other driver to determine whether in fact his driving was dangerous."

IMHO, what qualifies the other driver to determine whether or not the driving was dangerous is that they have felt in risk of their life. Or, that they felt the behaviour of the other driver would likely result in an accident/injury to them or someone else. 

In excess of 330 people have died on Irish roads since 1 January this year, and speeding, driving without due care and attention, dangerous and drink driving are all factors. 

I was almost knocked down at 8:45 a.m. yesterday morning by a driver at a pedestrian crossing.  She broke a red light and was about to drive through the crossing.  I had stepped into the road and froze in the middle of the road and I genuinely feared she would not stop and would hit me.  She braked suddenly and when I pointed to the 'green man' she laughed, waved at me and then drove on, at speed.  The incident happened so quickly that I was unable to obtain her vehicle registration number. No other pedestrians were crossing at the same time as me but I am sure other motorists witnessed what happened. 

As a fully qualified driver, a pedestrian and co-incidentally someone with good knowledge of Road Traffic Acts and the Rules of the Road, am I not qualified to say, that motorist was driving without due care and attention? Am I not qualified to complain and testify against someone like her who has a cavalier attitude to both the law and my safety as a road user? 

I make no apologies for feeling very strongly about this issue. Furthermore, I have no hesitation in making an official complaint (or if it comes to it, testifying) about any driver who I witness behaving dangerously. 

At the end of the day, the Judge will decide the penalties (if any) that are due.


----------



## quarterfloun (10 Nov 2005)

Go CMCR - exactly right. Thats how it should be. You go to the Garda, make your complaint, The Garda make a decision on prosecution and off to court or not. The Juudge can make his own mind up without a 3rd party having to teach him the rules. And the person being prosecuted should feel confident that he is being treated fairly by the law without the shouldering of a large expense.


----------



## Carpenter (10 Nov 2005)

I with you on this one CMR!  I hold a full clean drivers licence but am fortunate enough to live within walking distance of my workplace so I usually excercise that option.  I've had many such incidents like the one you recount of motorists ignoring lights and pedestrians at crossings.  It gets me very incensed when a motorist ignores/ doesn't see a pedestrian crossing the road.  "Anticipation" (as drummed into me by my driving instructor a few years ago is non existent.  "Yummy mummies" dropping off their little darlings to  nearby schools are without doubt the worst offenders (don't have any statistics Clubman- but my own experiences bear this out).  It's no surprise that I meet only a handful of other pedestrians each morning as I walk to work and it's a shame.  However I take some comfort from the fact that I (hopefully) won't be obese in years to come and I don't have to be a member of an expensive gym to get my daily excercise.  Another big irritant for me is when crossing the road at a junction and a motorist will insist on turning right, despite the fact that the pedestrian has started to cross- this is not permitted under the Rules of the Road.  These and other issues in relation to pedestrian courtesy and safety are not addressed by the Irish driving test and are unlikely to be either.  As a postscript I like to think that (as a sometime fellow pedestrian) I afford pedestrians some courtesy and care when I do use my car (despite being honked at for doing this by other motorists from time to time)


----------



## daltonr (10 Nov 2005)

> What's the alternative, Nially? Are you saying there should only be prosecutions if a Garda witnesses it?



That seems to be the case for more serious offenses.  When my windscreen was smashed by a gang of youths, I detained them until the Gardai arrived.   I was told they couldn't prosecute them.   Actually the Gardai were showing no signs of arriving at all until I told them I was going to deal with it myself.

Now that I see how this Dangerous Driving Rule works perhaps I should have simply rang the Gardai and say I saw the youths stopping in a Yellow Box,  or overtaking on an unbroken line.   

With Criminal Damage my word agaisnt theirs mightn't be enough,  but apparently if I have a grudge against a motorist it's pretty straight forward to get the Gardai to respond.



> IMHO, what qualifies the other driver to determine whether or not the driving was dangerous is that they have felt in risk of their life. Or, that they felt the behaviour of the other driver would likely result in an accident/injury to them or someone else.



Or...They didn't like being overtaken even ligitimately,  or they just had a row with their spouse,  or they don't like people who drive BMW's,  or they're just assholes.

I would say that if someone is driving dangerously then there is likely to be more than one witness to it.  E.g. If someone is speeding, and overtaking they will overtake more than one car.   If there is more than one call about the same car then that's something.   

If it's a one off call and if the driving behaviour sounds serious enough then a Garda might be able intercept the suspect and witness their driving for themselves.

Noone should be at risk of prosecution on nothing more than the word of a felloe motorist.  There are too many variables.

A couple of years ago I was stopped by a Garda who had followed me for a good 5 miles.  He eventually pulled me over and told me he had clocked me doing 75 and had followed me from Waterford.

I hadn't come from Waterford.  I hadn't even been in the place where he claimed to clock me.   When I told him this he changed his mind about where he had clocked me.   My word agaisnt his,  no evidence, no printout.   It was pre-Penalty points so I paid up.   If it happened today I'd go to court and risk the extra points.

Either He started following a car similar to mine and I just got unlucky,  or else he simply decided that noone would believe someone in their early 20's driving a BMW wasn't speeding and decided to Manufacture his Quota of speeders rather than sit around trying to really catch them.

If a Gardai will do this deliberately or otherwise,  what makes you think an asshole with a grudge wouldn't do it?   Why should it be easier to prosecute a motorist than someone who causes criminal damage?

Are motorists yet again to be a soft touch?    Is that acceptable?

-Rd


----------



## Ravima (11 Nov 2005)

sadly, you can have individual gardai who can persecute rather than prosecute. However, at the end of the day, you do need a solicitor who does know the law and the system who will work to yoru benefit.


Of course you can deal with the prosecution yourself, but you may now know all the nuances of the law and the proper defences, rather than the stupid defences. 

it makes more sense if a solictor can pleasd such and such section of law X rather than you trying to say that the light was not red, or the other car appeared from outer space.

A solictor wil lalso give you unbiased advice, rather than the freely available bar room advice, which will make more sense in the cold light of day. It might be better and cheaper to plead guilty to a minor offence rather than risk a conviction on the major offence with penalty points/disqualifiation.


----------



## spaceman (12 Nov 2005)

To move away from the court aspect, and I do not know if it applies in this case,IANAP but in life some people are pyschologically wired or parented so that they can never see that they could be in the wrong, have a finely tuned sense of entitlement, and are prepared to push things to the limit, unfortunately these people tend to win if they are let, whether it is in motoring confrontations or in the board room.


----------



## NiallA (30 Nov 2005)

Just to let you know there is a garda traffic watch line (Lo-call 1890 205805), where you can report incidences of dangerous driving to the garda.

I have done so twice in the past, on both occasions where i saw a motorist doing a hand brake skid on the public road.

One of the cases the garda who has assigned to the case, thought it was best that the offender be let off with a warning, (fair enough)

The second case, i made a witness statement to the gardai, and indicated i was willing to attend court as a witness.  In this case though, the charges were dropped.  Reason; the driver is now a paraplegic from another car accident.  if only he heeded the warning when i reported him.


----------



## CMCR (6 Dec 2005)

Hi NiallA, 

I am glad to hear that someone has included that Garda Lo-Call number and I wish more people would use it.  

It is sad to hear how that person ended up paralysed as a result of the car accident.  However it is a sad fact of life that dangerous driving results in thousands of deaths and serious injuries each year. 

On Easter Monday this year I was driving back to Dublin when I came upon a motorcycle accident.  A young man came off his bike and was lying in the middle of the road.  I was first on the scene and held his hand, spoke to him and tried to keep him going as we waited for the ambulance.  I think his neck was broken and unfortunately, he died before the ambulance arrived.  

I wish sometimes that some of the muppets I see speeding and driving recklessly and carelessly, at ludicrous speeds could experience and see the shocking scene I witnessed that day.  In addition, having to break such terrible news to someone's family by mobile phone as they lie dying on a public road is a very sobering experience too.


----------



## bond-007 (6 Dec 2005)

I used the trafficwatch number and got a case to court. Defendant did not bother to show up and case was ajourned twice. Had to attend 2 days and I still have not been compensated for my time and expenses. It seems to be a waste of time if the Gardai won't proceed when there is a no show.


----------



## Humpback (6 Dec 2005)

This is probably going to seem harsh to some people out there, but I feel pretty strongly about a lot of the tippy-toeying around accidents in this country. 

"The car went into a wall" or "The car went off the road". Again and again you hear this when reporting of accidents. Fair enough, it may not necessarily be known at the time, but we never hear follow ups afterwards to confirm that it was "The car went off the road because the driver was asleep", or "The car went into a wall because the driver was drunk and had no appreciation for the speed he was going around" a corner.



			
				CMCR said:
			
		

> A young man came off his bike



How???



			
				CMCR said:
			
		

> I wish sometimes that some of the muppets I see speeding and driving recklessly and carelessly, at ludicrous speeds could experience and see the shocking scene I witnessed that day.


 
How do we know that he wasn't himself one of those "muppets" as happened the paraplegic person mentioned above?


----------



## CMCR (6 Dec 2005)

ronan_d_john said:
			
		

> This is probably going to seem harsh to some people out there, but I feel pretty strongly about a lot of the tippy-toeying around accidents in this country.
> 
> "The car went into a wall" or "The car went off the road". Again and again you hear this when reporting of accidents. Fair enough, it may not necessarily be known at the time, but we never hear follow ups afterwards to confirm that it was "The car went off the road because the driver was asleep", or "The car went into a wall because the driver was drunk and had no appreciation for the speed he was going around" a corner.
> 
> ...


 
Fine, so here is your follow-up. 

The person was a 22 year old father of one who lived a few miles away from the scene of the accident.  The motorcycle was a second-hand one and he was thinking of buying it so brought it on a test-drive. I'm told it was his first time taking it for a spin and while he was wearing a helmet - he was wearing no other protective equipment.  

He was driving on a very wide, straight, open section of road.  It was early afternoon, a fine day with little traffic about and no other vehicle involved in the accident.  According to the Gardai and analysis of the scene following the accident, I am told the cause was most likely speeding.  He was off the bike only a few minutes when I came upon the scene and he was still breathing at that time. 

I could smell alcohol at the scene but I am not sure whether he was drink/driving or whether this was from the night before. His friends at the scene said he had not been drinking that day. 

My point was, that it is sad to hear about deaths and injuries through motoring accidents. While I have little sympathy for anyone who is aware of the risks of behaving recklessly (but carries on regardless), it is very sad to see how many peoples lives can be ruined by one reckless act. 

As horrific as the TV adverts on dangerous driving, etc are, I still don't think they truly capture the horror faced by anyone who comes on the scene of a severe accident (the Gardai, emergency personnel, passers-by etc.).  

The scene I witnessed that day has changed the way I drive and the way I approach road safety.  However, in my opinion, even if dangerous drivers were forced to visit recovering victims in hospitals, families, morgues I don't think it will ever change some people's behaviour.


----------

