Re: Priests are above the law!

[Maguire01]

I blame God.

[FL/MAYO]

used to be our pp a fair few years back; a "character" to say the least, and ive little doubt i know about 1% of the stories!

Is he from Donegal originally? If so I know him also, I was on a pub about twenty years ago (after hours) when the guards raided the pub, I was sitting beside the priest, we were the only ones not to get our names taken.

[Myles Na G.]

Father McGuinness, henceforth known as Skullin' McGuinness, or some such.

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

used to be our pp a fair few years back; a "character" to say the least, and ive little doubt i know about 1% of the stories!

Is he from Donegal originally? If so I know him also, I was on a pub about twenty years ago (after hours) when the guards raided the pub, I was sitting beside the priest, we were the only ones not to get our names taken.

Yes

[Main Street]

How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?

MS you are assuming that he was alone in the car.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

OK - didn't grasp there were different levels of charge.

It appears that there is two different levels of charge:

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws.php

and while the "being charge" is a lesser offence it is supposed to have a mandatory traffic ban.

How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?

I would guess that unless the prosecution had a witness to the crash and roundabout incident they would only go for how he was found (ie in charge of the vehicle).  There is a heavy burden of proof in these cases so there only has to be a possibility (not likelihood) that the accident happened without his involvement for the charges to fall through.

A lucky lad all the same.

/Jim.

[brokencrossbar1]

OK - didn't grasp there were different levels of charge.

It appears that there is two different levels of charge:

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws.php

and while the "being charge" is a lesser offence it is supposed to have a mandatory traffic ban.

How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?

I would guess that unless the prosecution had a witness to the crash and roundabout incident they would only go for how he was found (ie in charge of the vehicle).  There is a heavy burden of proof in these cases so there only has to be a possibility (not likelihood) that the accident happened without his involvement for the charges to fall through.

A lucky lad all the same.

/Jim.

You see it actually doesn't have a mandatory disqualification.  I was wrong in my initial posting as I had read it as he was caught drink driving which does have a mandatory one.  I would say though that with the level of alcohol in his blood that a ban should have been imposed and it sends out the completely wrong message to people.  He crashed his car into a roundabout and was a serious risk to others at that level of drunkeness.   Coupled with the fact he was only fined £300 I think it stinks.

[Jim_Murphy_74]

OK - didn't grasp there were different levels of charge.

It appears that there is two different levels of charge:

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws.php

and while the "being charge" is a lesser offence it is supposed to have a mandatory traffic ban.

How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?

I would guess that unless the prosecution had a witness to the crash and roundabout incident they would only go for how he was found (ie in charge of the vehicle).  There is a heavy burden of proof in these cases so there only has to be a possibility (not likelihood) that the accident happened without his involvement for the charges to fall through.

A lucky lad all the same.

/Jim.

You see it actually doesn't have a mandatory disqualification.  I was wrong in my initial posting as I had read it as he was caught drink driving which does have a mandatory one.  I would say though that with the level of alcohol in his blood that a ban should have been imposed and it sends out the completely wrong message to people.  He crashed his car into a roundabout and was a serious risk to others at that level of drunkeness.   Coupled with the fact he was only fined £300 I think it stinks.

Looking at that link :

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php

I read it as :

Obligatory driving ban of between 12-36 months, subject to possible 25% reduction for attending drink driving rehabilitation course.

even for being in charge.

/Jim.

[TacadoirArdMhacha]

Drunk in charge simply does not have a mandatory driving ban. The imposition of 10 penalty points is a relatively common disposal for a first time offender of good character.

BCB you say that he "crashed his car into a roundabout" but this clearly hasn't been proven. If it had been, he would have been banned from driving, possibly for more than a year.

[Ulick]

Looking at that link :

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php

I read it as :

Obligatory driving ban of between 12-36 months, subject to possible 25% reduction for attending drink driving rehabilitation course.

even for being in charge.

/Jim.

Jim, from the link, I'm reading the ban for drunk in charge as 'discretionary':

In charge while unfit, 3 months, £5,000, Discretionary, 10, DR50 (drink), DR90 (drugs)

[Jim_Murphy_74]

Looking at that link :

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php

I read it as :

Obligatory driving ban of between 12-36 months, subject to possible 25% reduction for attending drink driving rehabilitation course.

even for being in charge.

/Jim.

Jim, from the link, I'm reading the ban for drunk in charge as 'discretionary':

In charge while unfit, 3 months, £5,000, Discretionary, 10, DR50 (drink), DR90 (drugs)

On the main page it reads as such but when you click the link it uses the term Obligatory which confused me.

I still maintain he's a lucky chap given the circumstancial evidence.  I don't know how things are in up there but down south a collar would still be regarded as an asset in such a situation......

/Jim

[Gaoth Dobhair Abu]

Looking at that link :

http://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_laws_inchargewhileunfit.php

I read it as :

Obligatory driving ban of between 12-36 months, subject to possible 25% reduction for attending drink driving rehabilitation course.

even for being in charge.

/Jim.

Jim, from the link, I'm reading the ban for drunk in charge as 'discretionary':

In charge while unfit, 3 months, £5,000, Discretionary, 10, DR50 (drink), DR90 (drugs)

On the main page it reads as such but when you click the link it uses the term Obligatory which confused me.

I still maintain he's a lucky chap given the circumstancial evidence.  I don't know how things are in up there but down south a collar would still be regarded as an asset in such a situation......

/Jim

Don't think a "collar" would work in his favour up here Jim 

[Evil Genius]

How did the car move by itself and crash at the roundabout?
Did the priest deny driving it or attempting to drive?

Have I got this right?

A car, belonging to the Priest, was found crashed at a roundabout. The Priest was in attendance at the scene, and when breathylised, he was found to be four times over the limit.

I imagine the Peelers' first question was: "What's happened here, Father?" We must assume that had someone else been driving, but left the scene, the Priest would have been honour-bound, eager even, to say so, and it would have been recorded in Court. But since that was not reported, it seems unlikely.

Therefore the cops' next question will likely have been: "Were you driving the car, Father?". And since he was not charged with Drunk Driving, he must either have replied: "No", or declined to answer the question.

Either way, he was hardly discharging his civic duty in a manner befitting a 'man of the cloth'.

sc**bag.