[ad_1]
A road safety group has expressed concern after the number of people who had speeding offences struck out or dismissed after making a contribution to court ‘poor boxes’ almost doubled last year.
The poor box is a non-statutory system used in the District Courts to impose fines on offenders. A sum chosen by a judge is given to charity instead of the accused receiving a criminal conviction.
The system has been controversial for many years, with Mr Justice Gerard Hogan ruling in 2014 that its use for penalty point offences was specifically barred under the Road Traffic Act 2010. He held that the Act removed the discretion of judges to use the poor box for such offences and its further use was “incorrect”.
However, figures were provided by Minister for Justice Helen McEntee in response to parliamentary questions from Social Democrats TD Catherine Murphy, submitted at the request of road safety group Parc (Promoting Awareness Responsibility and Care on our roads), show its use continues.
Courts Service data show that 57 motorists had speeding offences quashed last year for this reason, up from 32 in 2021.
A further 45 people had a conviction struck out by contributing to the poor box in the first half of this year.
Ms Murphy also obtained data showing 12 convictions were struck out last year for holding a mobile phone while driving following a donation to the poor box, up from 11 in 2021.
Parc founder Susan Gray, whose husband Stephen was killed by an unaccompanied learner driver in December 2004, said she was concerned by the figures as use of the court poor box should be a thing of the past. She said the group has written to every judge in the State asking for them not to offer the option.
Ms Gray said she has been contacted on occasions by solicitors wondering if Parc would accept a court approved donation from a speeding driver whose conviction would be quashed once they agreed to a poor box donation.
“We have refused every one,” she said. “An offender is either guilty or guilty and that it is. It would be a total conflict of interest for us to accept any money.”
[ad_2]
Source link
