Garda going back on word

On reflection...


I suspect that you can’t be fined and prosecuted for the same offense.

Take legal advice. If there is a legal issue get a solicitor to represent her.

If there is no legal issue she should go herself and tell the judge the story.

You could call the garda in an enquiring manner and not in an accusatory manner and ask if there has been an admin error.

Brendan
 
Know
That Garda will have superiors who may have over-ruled what they saw as lenient treatment. He proposed a means of dealing with it, but he doesn't have final say.



Do they know now?

The application for insurance quote was completed truthfully and all questions asked were answered.
 
I was always under the impression that driving without insurance was not an fixed charge offence and that it always led to a summons if you couldn't provide evidence of insurance cover. So I don't see how the guard could decide to 'Fine you' as a way of dealing with the offence. You will have to respond to the summons but there is nothing stopping you calling into the station and asking to speak to the Guard to clarify exactly what you fined for. As Brendan says he can't fine you with a fixed charge and then send you to court to get fined again.... I would get a solicitor to be honest to take a look at the case and take advice from them if it is her livelihood.
 
The application for insurance quote was completed truthfully and all questions asked were answered.

So I take it you have not informed them of the summons. This is a significant issue and you have a duty to inform them immediately, the policy might be considered void until such time as you do.
 
.... she drives for a living , now her job is on the line.
She is in an awful state of worry now.


not sure if money is well spent ... on a solicitor to say same thing

Her living is on the long and she is in an awful state of worry but you won't pay a few hundred quid to get expert advice from someone who knows the workings of the courts, has knowledge of the judges she could get and would be able to present her case in the best possible light?

Remember, you initial thoughts was for her not to appear at all and send a letter instead.

Get the advice. A DIY job could result in her losing her job and you will have to increase the maintenance payments
 
There was no pending prosecution.
There is a pending prosecution, she's just been summoned to court to answer charges of driving with no insurance.

Your insurance may oblige you to inform the insurer of any material fact that could alter the risk-profile of the insured, including pending prosecutions, as they happen not a renewal time.
 
Make sure you have a solicitor and it would be advisable that you both show up on the day. If both of your stories tally then the judge may be lenient, if your ex-wife blames you and you're not there to agree the judge may doubt the veracity of her statement. Perhaps your solicitor will advise that a statement in advance might suffice (but doubtful)
Seriously if your ex-wife's job is at stake a few quid on a solicitor will be well worth it.
 
On reflection...


I suspect that you can’t be fined and prosecuted for the same offense.

Take legal advice. If there is a legal issue get a solicitor to represent her.

Brendan

Different offences as per OP.
Fine for non display of disk.
Summons for no valid insurance.
 
Different offences as per OP.
Fine for non display of disk.
Summons for no valid insurance.

But how was he fined? As far as I know, driving without an insurance disk is not an offence under the fixed charges or penalty points system. Guards will usually insist on seeing a valid insurance disk within a couple of days but I have never heard anyone being fined for not displaying their insurance disk. Driving without actual insurance is a mandatory court appearance. The Guard in question had no ability to issue a fine once it was admitted that there was no insurance. It has to be a court fine. He was right to seize the car but the rest is questionable. Worth a solicitor taking a look if the OP has his facts straight.
 
So I take it you have not informed them of the summons. This is a significant issue and you have a duty to inform them immediately, the policy might be considered void until such time as you do.
[/
Different offences as per OP.
Fine for non display of disk.
Summons for no valid insurance.
correct I will attend with her and get solicitor .
 
But how was he fined? As far as I know, driving without an insurance disk is not an offence under the fixed charges or penalty points system. Guards will usually insist on seeing a valid insurance disk within a couple of days but I have never heard anyone being fined for not displaying their insurance disk. Driving without actual insurance is a mandatory court appearance. The Guard in question had no ability to issue a fine once it was admitted that there was no insurance. It has to be a court fine. He was right to seize the car but the rest is questionable. Worth a solicitor taking a look if the OP has his facts straight.
No Insurance is not a discretionary offence that Guards can issue a caution. Must prosecute. She received a fixed penalty notice re No Insurance disc displayed and paid it that day. She has been summons for no insurance disc as well as no insurance. That summons for failing to display a valid insurance disc , should either be withdrawn or struck out as a fine has been issued and paid ,in respect of it. and receipt retained as proof.
She will state the facts as led by her solicitor and the Garda will agree I'm sure as he said , he accepts it was an error.
I think he thought he could deal with the matter as he initially outlined , but his line management acquainted him with the fact he couldn't ..
Fingers crossed for her . Only human , mistakes happen.
 
correct I will attend with her and get solicitor .

Not sure if the correct means you haven't told the insurance company yet. If that is true and it comes up in court, it will look very bad as the insurance is effectively void.
 
A few observations ;

Absence of insurance is a strict liability type of offence.
The fact of absence of insurance creates an automatic assumption of guilt.
It is possible to avoid conviction for no insurance if there is a persuasively compelling reason.
Unhappily, failure to renew through oversight is probably not within the scope of a valid defence.
The other matters should help to mitigate as clearly this was a "sin" of omission rather than commission.
Give the judge as much evidence as is possible to allow them to mitigate the severity of penalty.

As far as the Gardaí are concerned there is virtually no true discretion about bringing a charge as the absence of insurance is treated seriously.
You could only object to a prosecution if a letter of comfort had issued indicating that there would be no action and a summons then issued.
Court attendance is imperative

People have adverted to the issue of disclosure for the new insurance. Two points occur to me ;

1. What is required depends on the exact wording of the proposal form or on the presumptions made if seeking a quote on line or over the telephone.

It is possible that OP's ex. may have been entirely within her rights not to say anything about a pending prosecution when proposing for the new insurance. When does a pending prosecution actually become a pending prosecution ? If there was no pending prosecution the morning after the traffic stop would she have to have declared the matter to the new insurers ? Arguably not.

This is a strict or narrow construction of the issue.


2. Insurance contracts are written on an utmost good faith basis alias uberrima fides.

This concept includes the obligation to disclose material facts.

A material fact is one that is capable of influencing a prudent insurance underwriter in deciding whether or not to accept a risk proposed for insurance and, if so, upon what terms and conditions.

It is for the insurance underwriter to decide if a fact is material not the party proposing or renewing.
If there is doubt the general rule is to disclose thus keeping you on the right side of right.

I would argue that the proposer [the ex.] may well have failed in the duty of disclosure in not revealing the traffic stop by Gardai because the likely consequences of that event could be reasonably expected to be known.
However, the new insurers, on hearing of the full circumstances, might take a lenient view.

If there is a conviction for no insurance that will indisputably have to be disclosed before next renewal.

If insurers decide to cancel the new insurance ab initio [from the beginning] that of itself then becomes a material fact to be disclosed in any future applications for insurance and adds additional grief to the situation.

The very best outcome here is a relatively lenient penalty based upon persuasive mitigation and a kindly disposed insurance underwriter to decide to continue the new insurance contract as if it had been validly formed.
 
Thanks for that .... well composed.
There was no previous criminal convictions penalty points , or indeed expected prosecution when the renewal was done ...
Of course the court outcome will be disclosed in due course ....
 
Of course the court outcome will be disclosed in due course ....

Again, you most likely need to tell them now. If they decide to void your insurance over the failure to do so, you may find it very difficult to obtain insurance in the future.
 
Thanks for that .... well composed.
There was no previous criminal convictions penalty points , or indeed expected prosecution when the renewal was done ...
Of course the court outcome will be disclosed in due course ....

To clarify something.
I assumed that your ex. had effected new insurance the morning after the traffic stop.
I thought that this was with a new insurer as distinct from renewing the policy that was not renewed - my mistake !
If this understanding is correct be aware that the same principles relating to disclosure apply to and at a "renewal"
 
Back
Top