I see what you’re saying and agree.

This is easily one of the best journal comments I’ve ever read. Agree completely. I also think we should be wary of pinning all blame on one thing; most accidents are caused by speeding and poor roads. Drink is a factor in about 1/3 AFAIR, but it’s usually massive amounts over the limit rather than an extra glass or red. Driver fatigue is a much greater risk for example, and there is no law against it…

This happens all the time in America as an emotional argument for bad law. My sympathies to any victims, but it is not appropriate to use their name as a legal argument.

James, thank you for your comment. The idea of naming the campaign has achieved its objective. We wanted a name/theme that would resonate and generate debate much like Megan’s Law and Sarah’s law in other jurisdictions and for hideous offences. We strive to ensure that Brendan’s Law seeks justice, not vengeance for all victims of drunk drivers and we are navigating our way through due process and democracy. If the proposals are flawed they will be challenged. As a communications professional I remain objective and as Christina knows and accepts myself and the team must approach this campaign objectively if anything is to be achieved and not allow emotion to influence our decisions. We do not want bad law. We want a just, fair and pro active bill to go through each and every examination it will face. I hope this clarifies the name theme and thank you once again for your comment. Dr. Nick Flynn.

Hello Mike, its actually a summary offence, Cases are dealt with by Administrative Law in other jurisdictions. Here its Common Law. Speaking to non nationals there is a perception (right or wrong) we are soft on I suppose what can best be described in general as “white collar” crime.

Patsyjoe as a truck driver I disagree. It is a necessity for me. Also agree with the due process comment. Anyone that has not been proven not guilty of a crime should not be punished. You are assuming that the law always get it right. My view is the law doesnt get it right 50% of the time & should be challenged. In particular speed camera vans are not correct most of the time & my research suggests that when these cases are defended properly the cases are thrown out most of the time. This is starting to become the norm in the UK as police forces are abusing their power over motorists. Police abusing power is a worse crime than drink driving & its accuring everwhere.

Michael I appreciate your position on a number of points of law and I agree justice is not always best served. However this campaign seeks to close loopholes where they exist relating to those who willfully turn their cars into lethal weapons once they get behind the wheel under the influence. We are not taking a high moral ground stance on this and no person in authority should abuse the power vested in them. Our campaign seeks justice for the families of the dead, a death that is completely avoidable. God knows accidents will occur but these deaths and the maiming of survivors are preventable providing a fair, balanced law is enacted. Thank you.

I am not aware of any law based on emotions. Laws are triggered by necessity, fiscal governance and occasionally as a result of a public outcry. The process may result from an emotional response but in the end there are many, many layers to navigate until a law or an amendment is placed on the statute books and the original emotion is long forgotten, as it should be.

And should equally those caught texting while driving, which has been proven to be more dangerous than DUI.

To Brehon Law, what you propose is not possible hence the need for change. To do as you suggest could provoke a Constitutional Rights debate as it would mean the introduction of an Administrative Law system rather than the Common Law we employ. Even in Europe the law is way stricter than here. Immediate confiscation of a car and a subsequent auction is one example. However Inote the Gardai can impound an uninsured vehicle so maybe we are heading the right way.

To Brehon Law, what you propose is not possible hence the need for change. To do as you suggest could provoke a Constitutional Rights debate as it would mean the introduction of an Administrative Law system rather than the Common Law we employ. Even in Europe the law is way stricter than here. Immediate confiscation of a car and a subsequent auction is one example. However I note the Gardai can impound an uninsured vehicle so maybe we are heading the right way.

TD’s, Judges, Guards & Senators!?! Where did you pull that little nugget from!?! The reason there are loopholes is because there’s a lucrative market for defence Barristers to find same & save their clients driving licences!! Losing your right to drive & the consequences that follow; ie. job, family, lifestyle is often too much for most & they fight it tooth & nail to keep on the road! Drink Driving legislation is some of the most scrutinised in this country for loopholes!! There’s money to be made in the defending of these charges, loopholes will always be found, closed with amendments, but new ones found!! Nothing to do with drink driving TD’s, Judges & Guards!

Members of all the aforementioned have appeared in court in the last few years for drink driving and they were highly publicised. And you are backing up my point ib relation to the legal loopholes.

Hello, may I say there is anecdotal evidence that suggests those with deeper pockets can afford to hire the very best. I do not mean this as an insult to any legal professional but the safe, sure way to eliminate the huge variance in sentencing is to bring in mandatory sentencing. From our research a very high percentage of killer drivers are appearing before the court for the first time. A defendant is entitled to put forward mitigation arguments but at this point in time discretionary sentencing can a d does result in added stress to an already traumatized family. The criminal who killed Brendan and Lee will serve 18 months for each life. I would not like to be the person to explain the logic behind that sentence to the little girl who will never see her father – Lee’s daughter. Setting aside without prejudice the licence of a charged defendant will not negate the presumption of innocence. In this specific instance it will be a matter for the court to decide the appropriate penalty. Very few cases actually go to trial. An early guilty plea is considered beneficial to the defendant.

I respectfully disagree with your point. The innocent majority of drivers have nothing to fear from well debated good law Barry. Drink driving is a crime. You forfeit your rights when you knowingly break the law and I do not consider this comment to be fascist in nature or content Barry.

Nick, I would respectfully suggest you peruse the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts 1961 to 2011. The legislation already contains a number of statutory presumptions which reverse the burden of proof in the subsequent criminal trial forcing the defendant to effectively prove his innocence. Notwithstanding these right wing provisions, the law reports are littered with examples of Garda incompetence and, occasionally, more sinister behaviour. No democratic criminal justice system should confer upon the Executive arm of government, namely the Gardaí, the potential of falsely imprisoning a citizen without proper due process (i.e. a trial where the prosecution bears the burden of proof, not the defendant). This proposal is an affront to the presumption of innocence and seek to usurp the role of the Courts by imposing a penal sanction, through the deprivation of the use of one’s car, until such time at that person proves his innocence. Are you, as a taxpayer, prepared to fund the cost of the losses associated with the loss of one’s car in circumstances where the prosecution is dismissed?

totally agree with the law ppl know the limit and know they want to anywhere they should abide to the limit if not don’t bother your arse driving get a designated driver and get a taxi home. thinking saves lives until u know someone(which hop

Your argument is based on the idea that every human is a rational being. Sadly we aren’t especially while under the influence. That’s why education will not fully solve the problem. Closing ridiculous loopholes in the law like this one and bringing in more than mickey mouse sentences for people who kill others on the road is needed alongside education.