speeding ticket help

can any one advise me.
I received a speeding ticket.
my address was wrong,my name was incorrectly spelt and it just had a low quality picture of my reg so one of the digit can be viewed as another.
is it worth going to court and possibly getting more points & fined more,or just pay the fine?.
chrisst

If you were really speeding and it was really you, then just accept you did something wrong and pay the fine... It may cost you more to try to challenge the state in court...

If you go the "wrong digit/wrong reg" route, make sure that the car having this reg is identical to yours... the odds are against you

As someone who has worked in this area there is a corresponding full-scale image which the garda also posess. Only the cropped image is sent out to the registered owner of the car. The full image will show quite clearly who was driving and the make/model of the car is very readily made out - if the image was captured by a gatso. If it was a fixed camera then the make and model can also be eaqsily made out.

The area where your name is misspelt is down to the Department of Transport and not the Justice department. Don't know if this would have any legal basis for a challenge. Woudn't imagine so as you are still the registered owner of the car (the garda will also bring along a Certificate of Ownership from the DOE to courrt to confirm this).

If you show up in court you are automatically validating the summons regardless of errors. The summons is merely a device to get you there.

The only way to pursue this course is to ignore the summons as you believe it is not for you. This is risky as a bench warrant may be issued for you arrest but you may beat this if you demonstrate the fault in the summons, but do you want the Gardai calling to your door and hauling you away in front of the neighbours etc.

If its a fixed penalty notice may be simpler to pay it

NB This message should not be construed as legal advice

A bench warrant for speeding is highly unlikely. It is more likely they would simply convict you in your absense once the gardai can prove proper service of the summons. The next you would hear is when the gardai come to the door with a warrant looking for the money and your driving licence.

Even if a bench warrant was issued, the gardai would not simply haul you away. Normally as a courtesy they would call around and advise you of the existance of a warrant and ask you to attend the court of you own volition or else they would come get you that morning of the court i.e. execute the warrant.

I have seen them issued in these circumstances but an incorrectly addressed summons cannot be valid, the court can ammend them but only if you show up...but as stated that is risky. Of course convicted in your absence would be overturned if the summons was invalid

NB This should not be construed as legal advice

DPP v. Clein [1983] ILRM 76 Henchy J. (speaking for the Supreme Court) approved a conclusion by Gannon J. in this court in the same case [1981] ILRM 465 at p. 468 to the effect that:-

• • “When a defendant, as in this case, to whom a summons has been addressed and issued for service, attends in court with solicitor and counsel representing him and submits to the jurisdiction of the court and to the hearing by the court of the charges laid and the evidence thereon, the summons to which he responded ceases to have any significance”.

for completeness from Payne v District Judge John Brophy & Anor

[2006] IEHC 34

4.2 However it is important to note that no objection or submission would appear to have been made in Clein contesting the validity of the summons. In DPP v. Garbutt (Unreported, High Court, Murphy J. 4th May, 2004) this court was concerned with a case stated which raised issues concerning the validity of a conviction. In the course of the judgment (at p. 5) Murphy J. quoted with approval from Woods: District Court (on Procedure in Criminal Cases) (1994) (at p.133) to the effect that:-

• • “Where the accused does not appear or appears merely for the purpose of objecting to the validity of the summons, then a fundamental defect in the summons will be fatal to proceedings”.

Further reference was made to a passage from Woods at p. 149 to the following effect:-

• • “The actual attendance of an accused in court will cure a defect relating to the process of securing his attendance unless his attendance is specifically to take objection to the irregulatory”.

4.3 On that basis, and in considering the facts of the case before him, Murphy J. went on to hold that:-

• • “It is clear that on 28th November, 2002 the accused appeared pursuant to the summons to challenge its validity. Where there is a fundamental defect in the summons it would be unfair to proceed where the accused appeared for the sole purpose of objecting to the defect. Such an appearance would not be a step in the proceedings.
    Where a defect objected to was one of form or of service the attendance of the accused may indeed cure the defect”.

4.4 Similarly in Walsh, Criminal Procedure (2002) the author notes that:-

• • “Technical defects in the form of the summons are equally unlikely to form the basis for a successful defence. They do not automatically render the proceedings void or relieve the respondent of the obligation to answer the summons, so long as the form used is otherwise sufficient to express the intention of the person who issued it. It is the making of a valid complaint, and not the issue of a summons, which gives the court jurisdiction in the matter. The summons is merely a device to secure the attendance of the defendant in court to answer the complaint. If it has not been validly issued or the defect on its face is fundamental, the defendant will be relived of the obligation to appear in response to it”.

4.5 While that passage concerns the traditional manner of initiating criminal proceedings in the District Court by means of a complaint followed by the issue of a summons, there would not appear to be any reason in principle why the same logic should not apply to the procedure now available whereby proceedings can be commenced by an application for the issuing of a summons. This latter procedure was the one adopted in the case under consideration.
4.6 It is therefore clear that a fundamental distinction needs to be made between:-
1. Defects which go to the jurisdiction of the court; and
2. Defects which are purely procedural in nature.
It would seem that a defect which goes to the jurisdiction of the court (such as the fact that no proper complaint had been made under the former procedure or no proper application had been made under the new procedure) cannot be cured by the attendance of the defendant. Similar consequences would seem to flow from a situation where the summons itself is fundamentally flawed. However, technical or procedural defects concerning the manner in which the attendance of the accused was secured before the court are capable of being cured by attendance.
4.7 That leads to the question of the proper approach which should be adopted by a judge of the District Court when a contention is made that the proceedings are not properly before him. In Duff v. District Justice Mangan and Others [1994] ILRM, the Supreme Court had to consider such a question. Denham J. (speaking for the court at p. 91) said:-

• • “The question (the validity of the summons) having been raised by the defence herein, it was for the District Court to hear evidence and determine the issue”.

If it was u speeding pay the fine,it will end up costing u more to go to court with it.Anyway why would u bother if it was u speeding??

Why should someone pay for offences that possibly do not relate to them? Or pay where the charges are defective? Persons are entitled to use the legal system to their advantage.

bond-007 said:

Why should someone pay for offences that possibly do not relate to them? Or pay where the charges are defective? Persons are entitled to use the legal system to their advantage.

Click to expand...

It was my impression that the original poster was not disputing the charge other than on technicalities. If that is the case then it might be better to just pay up.