pending court case re: accused of driving while talking on a phone
- Thread starter steve1234
- Start date
It's your word against his
Does anyone know for sure if it's an offence to hold a phone while driving?
It's your word against his
Does anyone know for sure if it's an offence to hold a phone while driving?
I'll take my chances on this one seeing as there is no penalty for being found in the wrong!
Marathon Man
Registered User
- Messages
- 176
In this case the issue of whether the OP had a phone in his hand or not is, I believe academic. As other posters have pointed out, driving with one hand on the wheel, while resting one's head on the other hand is clearly idiotic.
I'm not a legal professional, but I understand that the judge has discretion to impose a charge for careless driving (5 points) if the OP testifies that he was driving in the manner he has stated.
OK, the OP feels aggrieved that they're being hammered for something they claim they weren't doing but their defense is that they were doing something else that they shouldn't have doing either.
I reckon the OP is doing well not to be charged with careless driving and risks being convicted with that if they go to court.
Pay the fine, take the two points and keep both hands on the wheel in future....Oh! ....and do some neck exercises to keep your head up! No sympathy!
I'm not a legal professional, but I understand that the judge has discretion to impose a charge for careless driving (5 points) if the OP testifies that he was driving in the manner he has stated.
OK, the OP feels aggrieved that they're being hammered for something they claim they weren't doing but their defense is that they were doing something else that they shouldn't have doing either.
I reckon the OP is doing well not to be charged with careless driving and risks being convicted with that if they go to court.
Pay the fine, take the two points and keep both hands on the wheel in future....Oh! ....and do some neck exercises to keep your head up!
No sympathy!
G
Guest106
Guest
If we are to be of any assistance to OP here, we must address facts rather than conjecture. All too often speculation permeates some of these responses.
Consider the judges position. The Judge is looking looking at the document copy on which the alleged offence is laid forth and listening to the evidence from the Garda and you in an effort to determine the appropriateness of that specific charge. Judges may on occasion hear evidence that would be more relevant to entirely charges but is excluded from that consideration if those offences are not specified in the summons.
FACT: A defendant cannot end up convicted of something he was not summoned to court for. The conviction must relate directly to the charge on which brought before the court. To be summoned to court for 'handling a mobile phone' will not result in a conviction for careless or dangerous unless there is an accompanying summons of that designation.
Could OP indicate briefly but precisely what the summons alleges ?
Are there several summonses and if so in brief what is alleged in each ?
IMO .....nobody should decide to plead to something they did not do unless this was being done to escape the death penalty should that predicament be their misfortune.
Consider the judges position. The Judge is looking looking at the document copy on which the alleged offence is laid forth and listening to the evidence from the Garda and you in an effort to determine the appropriateness of that specific charge. Judges may on occasion hear evidence that would be more relevant to entirely charges but is excluded from that consideration if those offences are not specified in the summons.
FACT: A defendant cannot end up convicted of something he was not summoned to court for. The conviction must relate directly to the charge on which brought before the court. To be summoned to court for 'handling a mobile phone' will not result in a conviction for careless or dangerous unless there is an accompanying summons of that designation.
Could OP indicate briefly but precisely what the summons alleges ?
Are there several summonses and if so in brief what is alleged in each ?
IMO .....nobody should decide to plead to something they did not do unless this was being done to escape the death penalty should that predicament be their misfortune.
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
I don't think anyone actually did say thay, other than its very common. I reckon it would be very a big stretch to claim that driving with one hand on the wheel is automatically dangerous driving. Its impossible to drive with your hands on the wheel all of the time. Theres a huge range of actions in the car that require you to take a hand off the wheel, gear changes, controlling the windows, ventilation radio, theres no law against scratching you head etc. People are human not robots.
Pay the fine, take the two points and keep both hands on the wheel in future....Oh! ....and do some neck exercises to keep your head up!
Your making this very black and white, and I don't think it is.
That said I think I'd just pay the fine. Lesser of two evils.
Marathon Man
Registered User
- Messages
- 176
Agreed. However there is a huge difference between any of the actions you mention and what the OP say they were doing. The OP "was driving along with the window down and my arm was on the side door and i was resting my head on my hand."
Try simulating this as you read and also estimate your reaction time. I reckon that reaction times from such a position would be seriously impaired.
I think this is the best the OP can expect.
do you truly believe that someone driving a car with his elbow on the window frame his hand holding a mobile phone pressed to his ear was just resting his head and not using the phone ,what a story that is,the judge should laugh at the excuses and fine you the most,only today thare has been two deaths on the roads caused by negligent inattentive driving.
can you point to one case , ever , when someone was convicted for having only one had on the steering wheel ?
I hope you never change gear...
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
People usually do this in heavy slow moving traffic, waiting in a queue etc. At the lights. So how dangrous it is would be depend on the context in which its happening. The reality is theres no proof that you aren't holding a phone unless you had another witness outside the car. So realistically its a charge you can't easily defend against. You could have a pay as you go phone and a bill phone.
End of the day is the cost of defending worth the effort and the likely outcome.
End of the day is the cost of defending worth the effort and the likely outcome.
starlite68
Registered User
- Messages
- 330
because without principle...what are we?
G
Guest106
Guest
The point of principle has been raised so I shall share mine with those who may find it of interest and it is this.
The State must never proceed or be allowed to succeed against it's citizens by foul or unfair means. The principle of transparency applies totally.
To do otherwise is to allow the agents of the State to engage in a variety of nefarious, wrongful and even illegal acts with impunity. This is wrong and unacceptable in all properly admistered democracies.
We, I, as mere mortals will transgress from time to time and the laws enacted already exist to make corrections and administer sanctions following proper enquiry within acceptable and prescribed codes of behaviour on the part of those entrusted with enforcement. No agent of the State has ever been sworn in and trained to safeguard and maintain the State's interests and authorised to do so by unfair or illegal means.
To do otherwise is to allow corruption and I think we have had too much of that from the custodians of the law in their various settings in this State in modern times. That is the foundation for miscarriages of justice.
My bottom line is this: As a citizen of this State. I do try to observe it's laws and recognise the responsibilities that go with that but occasionally I may be found wanting in that regard in an unguarded moment. Now if I transgress, the State will have to catch me by fair means before it can expect to bring me before a court and mete out punishment to me. If I am caught by fair means then I will give the prosecutors no trouble and will acquiesce with the prosecution's case. It will be 'hands up' on my part and I will think no ill of any part of the prosecution machine, be that the Gardai, local authority, Judges, whatever.
They have jobs to do and in all normal circumstances are entitled to our cooperation and support. These officials perform very valuable work on behalf of the citizenry in discharging their functions. But I will not allow the State to demean itself by engaging in the corruption of the judicial process in it's pursuit of nonentities like me. I will do my bit to enable the State to maintain the high standards we are all entitled to expect and as are laid down in our Constitution. I may sometimes falter and consequently may not fulfil my highest ideals in this regard but I will support the State in all circumstances in which it is acting fairly and justly.
Webster on 'Principle' : .....a fundamental truth.....a settled rule of law....a governing law......a right rule of conduct.
The State must never proceed or be allowed to succeed against it's citizens by foul or unfair means. The principle of transparency applies totally.
To do otherwise is to allow the agents of the State to engage in a variety of nefarious, wrongful and even illegal acts with impunity. This is wrong and unacceptable in all properly admistered democracies.
We, I, as mere mortals will transgress from time to time and the laws enacted already exist to make corrections and administer sanctions following proper enquiry within acceptable and prescribed codes of behaviour on the part of those entrusted with enforcement. No agent of the State has ever been sworn in and trained to safeguard and maintain the State's interests and authorised to do so by unfair or illegal means.
To do otherwise is to allow corruption and I think we have had too much of that from the custodians of the law in their various settings in this State in modern times. That is the foundation for miscarriages of justice.
My bottom line is this: As a citizen of this State. I do try to observe it's laws and recognise the responsibilities that go with that but occasionally I may be found wanting in that regard in an unguarded moment. Now if I transgress, the State will have to catch me by fair means before it can expect to bring me before a court and mete out punishment to me. If I am caught by fair means then I will give the prosecutors no trouble and will acquiesce with the prosecution's case. It will be 'hands up' on my part and I will think no ill of any part of the prosecution machine, be that the Gardai, local authority, Judges, whatever.
They have jobs to do and in all normal circumstances are entitled to our cooperation and support. These officials perform very valuable work on behalf of the citizenry in discharging their functions. But I will not allow the State to demean itself by engaging in the corruption of the judicial process in it's pursuit of nonentities like me. I will do my bit to enable the State to maintain the high standards we are all entitled to expect and as are laid down in our Constitution. I may sometimes falter and consequently may not fulfil my highest ideals in this regard but I will support the State in all circumstances in which it is acting fairly and justly.
Webster on 'Principle' : .....a fundamental truth.....a settled rule of law....a governing law......a right rule of conduct.
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
Convicted of what? Driving with one hand?