Missing the point
This information is gleaned from the Pulse system where, theretofore, “medical emergency” was the top reason for canceling penalty points.
Today, there are far fewer records of points being cancelled due to “medical emergencies”. The fall-off in the number of incidences recorded coincides with major publicity around the penalty points issue. Either there are far fewer emergencies or else senior gardaí are no longer canceling points based on an unsupported claim that the speeding motorist was engaged in a vital endeavour.
Medical emergencies feature prominently in the report into the penalty points controversy, compiled by Assistant Commissioner John O’Mahoney, and published last week. Medical emergency was the top reason for canceling points, or Fixed Charge Notices, in the incidence investigated by O’Mahoney and his team.
Overall, the report found allegations of corruption and malpractice in canceling penalty points were largely unfounded, with a few rare exceptions.
Yet this newspaper has viewed garda records that illustrate a very different culture from the one portrayed in the report. In viewing more than 100 records of terminated penalty points, what emerges is a system in which repeat offenders regularly got points cancelled, bizarre and highly suspicious reasons were accepted for terminations — and sometimes no reason at all — and members of An Garda Síochána had points terminated on very flimsy basis. None of this emerges as grounds for concern in the O’Mahoney report.
The report dealt with specific allegations about the canceling of points, including a serious one regarding a motorist who had points cancelled and was subsequently involved in a fatal accident. That allegation was convincingly refuted, and the report conducted an audit on 1% of cases, numbering 672, in order to determine any patterns.
The result of the audit? “Of the 672 terminations examined, 600 (89%) were in adherence with administrative policies and procedures, while the remaining 72 (11%) terminations were not in adherence,” the report states. The 72 that were not were “made by members terminating Fixed Charge Notices outside their district”.
In other words, the only issue to arise in the audit was the some senior gardaí terminated points outside their districts. Apart from that, it’s a question of nothing to see here, folks, move along.
Not quite.
Senior gardaí can use their discretion in terminating points, but, according to the report, “while considering various mitigating issues, other factors such as the seriousness of the charge and the likelihood of the offence being repeated must also be countenanced”. This infers that a motorist’s record in being detected must be considered. The report deals with four specific incidences of repeat offenders contained in allegations. Explanations are given for all, including one that involved an “medical emergency” and another that involved following “policy and procedure”, although no supporting evidence was referenced.
In the audit conducted, no provision was made to investigate repeat offenders. For instance, if the termination of a notice for John Doe was examined, no check was made to see whether this was his only incident, or a repeat application to terminate.
The garda records seen by this newspaper include the following cases:
Three family members on Dublin’s northside had seven fixed charge notices terminated in less than two years.
A man involved in state security had his notice cancelled in 2011, with the reason “intruder at his home”. A month later, his wife’s notice was terminated by the same garda with the comment “cancelled”.
One motorist had four notices terminated in three months in 2010.
A female motorist had four notices terminated in 2011. Twice the comment box was blank, meaning no reason at all was provided. (The Pulse system requires a comment within the box, outlining the reason for termination. But if the box is clicked into with a mouse, and the space bar tapped a few times, the computer allows the record to proceed. A large number of cases seen by this reporter had a blank comment box). A husband and wife in the north-east had four tickets cancelled in two years. Twice, the comment box was blank, the third recorded the reason merely as “cancelled”, and the fourth was “called to a medical emergency”.
A motorist with “an insulin-dependent son” had an “emergency call to hospital”, but he was detected twice in the same day.
A motorist in Cork had three notices within a week terminated. The first two had “cancelled” in the comment box, the third had “comprehensive letter” explaining why all three had occurred.
A motorist on Dublin’s northside had terminations for five notices over nine months. The first three had a blank comment box, with “medical emergency” in the other two.
A motorist in the south-east had three notices cancelled, the first two with no reason attached, and the third recorded as “speeding due to illness”.
A driver for a public service transport company had two notices cancelled in 2010, both with the reason “unfamiliar with route”. (Getting caught once didn’t prompt him to familiarise himself with the route.)
A woman in the south of the country had three notices terminated in the space of a year. The comment box recorded the reason as “A&E nurse”. There was no indication whether the nurse was speeding to an emergency, or merely going to, or from hospital, or whether he was even on duty at the time of the detections.
There are a number of cited re,asons why notices can be terminated such as a stolen vehicle, or a disabled parking pass, or an incorrect speed limit. There are also “discretionary” reasons, including “family bereavement”, our old friend “medical emergency”, and, crucially, “other”.
In investigating specific allegations about the system, and in conducting the audit, the O’Mahoney report cites the number one reason for terminations as “medical emergency”.
Elsewhere, reasons aren’t stated but included in the overall conclusion that cases “adhered to policy and procedure”. Does the acceptance of a ludicrous reason fulfil this criteria?
Here are some of the reasons in the comment boxes seen by this paper.
“Delivery of clothes to St Vincent de Paul”, “On the way to work”, “Philanthropic benevolence” (this motorist was detected speeding at 156km/h in Carlow), “Public interest — chairman of [local voluntary organisation in Co Clare]”, “Returning from funeral” (this incident was recorded at 4.30pm and a speed of 150km/h0, “Medical certificate for holding mobile phone”, “telephone call to hurry home”, “phone was in handset, confirmed by garda” (in other words, a motorist was detected using his phone by a garda, but when asked about it by the senior garda, the rank-and-file member confirmed he hadn’t seen what he recorded that he’d seen!), “Car broken down, assistance needed”, “Family difficulty”.
A number of cases had no reasons at all attached to their file, with the comment box simply left blank.
One case was terminated two days after the detection. The O’Mahoney report states that, in applying for a termination, “motorists must submit their cancellation request in writing with any supporting documentation, to the District Officer in whose district the offence occurred”.
This means this motorist would have had to be informed of the notice, the senior district garda in writing, and had reasons for termination accepted, and the notice terminated, in the space of 48 hours.
The report investigated allegations against nine garda superintendents and inspectors. Of these, three were found to have acted outside “policy and procedure”, principally through terminating notices outside their own areas. One inspector was found to have issues with nearly half of the 694 terminations he was responsible for in the 3 and a half years covered by the probe.
Yet the wider implication is that there may be nothing more than a few not quite bad, just slightly off, apples involved, rather than a culture of dodgy terminations.
Over half the cases of gardaí who received terminations of their notices listed the reason as being on duty or performing a garda function while off duty. Beyond the claim that these members were on duty, nothing is provided to confirm the claim.
Nearly all the allegations about members benefiting from terminations were found to be groundless, and a similar result was found in the audit.
“The overall findings would suggest that these allegations of widespread terminating for family and friends are incorrect,” the report states.
One member was detected four times in three years. The reason for each termination was “emergency”.
One notice for detection of an offence in the midlands was authorised by a senior garda in a specialist unit in Dublin. A garda’s case in Portlaoise was dealt with by a senior garda in a Dublin station.
One member was detected four times. Each case was dealt with by the same senior garda. The first three had no reason in the comment box, the fourth had “operational”.
A garda driving a commercial vehicle — which is against the force’s rules — had his notice terminated.
A senior garda in a Midlands station terminated the notice for a member in the north-east with the reason “received call that house being burgled”.
A garda in the Leinster area had three notices terminated, two with the reason “garda on duty”, and the third “incorrect registration showing”.
The comment box on another member’s case had the following: “Spoke with member concerned, now satisfied that he was not using phone.”
One garda’s reason for termination was “taking a statement”, while another was “on duty in connection with the Royal visit”. (Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan said he had a fixed notice terminated after receiving it for speeding on his way to a meeting.)
The incidences checked give rise to some questions about the detection of gardaí for motoring offences and the role of those doing the detecting. For instance, are the detecting gardaí consulted, as per policy, every time a notice is terminated or does the senior garda operate entirely on his or her own judgment?
Are the three senior gardaí facing disciplinary procedures the only ones who have abused the system, or are they relatively typical of a culture, and just unlucky to have been highlighted in the O’Mahoney report?
The records seen and cited above are not exhaustive and no claim is being made they are entirely representative. Neither is it being suggested that these specific cases were reviewed by the O’Mahoney investigating team and discounted or ignored. But it would not have been difficult to locate them on the records and there is no reason to believe they are entire exceptions to a rule of good practice.
The issues raised in this article don’t appear to feature to any extent in the O’Mahoney report. There is reason to believe a culture of terminating fixed charge notices on a flimsy basis existed to a far greater extent than the manner in which it was referenced in the O’Mahoney report.
Among the recommendation in the report are closer scrutiny of senior gardaí conducting terminations where “no written record or file is retained”, detailed scrutiny of terminations for “gardaí on duty” and care over “terminations for retired gardaí /garda family members /public figures”.
A reading of the detail and tenor of the report would suggest that these are relatively minor issues. A more considered examination of the culture of terminating fixed charge notices might not come to the same conclusion.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
