| We visited a District Court recently, and were astounded by the amount of Women being prosecuted for NOT having a TV Licence. For two hours solid it was ALL Women that were before the Judge. The Judge took the "lenient" position of fining all the women, and asking them if they had since purchased a TV Licence. Most of the Women responded that they had. For those that had not yet purchased "the licence" the Judge directed them to do so, and to return to Court at a later date with the licence, notwithstanding they now also had a fine to pay. …. Absolutely NONE of these Women challenged the case(s) against them. They were probably told, "just plead guilty, accept the fine, and bring a copy of your new TV licence to the Court for the Judge to see" …. It was like a conveyor belt of money rolling up the aisle. My guess would be, there would have been at least forty or so Women in Court that day paying fines, and presenting newly acquired TV licences. Imagine if just ten of the Woman (One in Four) had decided to challenge the cases against them, and go to trial? And the week after another ten Women or Men decided to do the same, and so on for a year? Each of their cases could possibly take months and months to sort out, and would and could have the potential to hold up that specific District Court for a few years. The Court would not be able to process any other cases, as it would have so many cases in the system clogging it up. Very little if any revenue would be generated for the Court, the State and/or for the Legal agents/representative of the TV Licencing Authority. The local TV Licence inspectors would not have the time to inspect/investigate "the Crime" of not having a TV Licence by other Women or Men, as they would be too busy with Court proceedings, and preparing "evidence" against the People they were trying to prosecute, there would be total anarchy. All it would have taken for these Women to delay and challenge the validity of the charges against them, would be to say to the Judge, that they were seeking a "Gary Doyle Order". A Gary Doyle Order means that you are seeking to examine ALL THE "EVIDENCE" that is being used against you, if any. You may later decide to plead guilty or not-guilty, and may consider challenging the validity of evidence, and/or may seek to cross examine potential witnesses, which in most cases is the TV Licence Inspector him/herself. Can they PROVE you have a Telly? Can they PROVE that you were in possession of a Telly on the day in question? Have they got photographic evidence of you with a Telly on the day in question, they can PROVE you own? … Surely, you are not going to give evidence against yourself, by saying/stating that you have a Telly? Surely the BURDEN OF PROOF in LAW is always on the accuser (the TV Licence Inspector), to prove their case? Which in most cases they cannot … as in most cases they cannot prove that you were in possession of a Telly on the day in question (unless you admit it). At Least … THINK ABOUT IT!!! | 
Your assertion that the inspector has to prove you have a tv is not true. They have to prove you have an aerial that can receive a tv signal. Since these are usually outside the house, its easy to prove.
ReplyDeleteNow, I am up in Ennis court in late September for non payment of said tv licence so will be seeking the Gary Doyle order. I have one question, can the judge dismiss my request because the case is not worthy of putting the tv inspectors/RTE/An Post to the bother of gathering up whatever info they have on me?
Any answer to my reply? Anyone?
ReplyDelete