Brennan v DPP

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'FLAHERTY J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1996
• Neutral Citation: 1995 WJSC-SC 4001
• Docket Number: (235/95)
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1996

1995 WJSC-SC 4001

THE SUPREME COURT

Hamilton C.J.

O'Flaherty J.

Denham J.

(235/95)

BRENNAN v. DPP

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE SUMMARY

JURISDICTION ACT 1857 AS EXTENDED BY

SECTION 21 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL

PROVISIONS) ACT 1961

BETWEEN/

DEREK BRENNAN

Appellant

and

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Respondent

Citations:

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S21

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S21

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S13

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S50

DPP V MCGARRIGLE UNREP SUPREME 22.6.87 1991/11/2775

DPP V HAND 1994 1 IR 577

DPP, PEOPLE V QUILLIGAN 1986 IR 495

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S14

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(6)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(1)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S12(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACTS 1961 – 1978

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S14

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(1)(b)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49

Synopsis:

CONSTITUTION

Personal rights

Privacy - Invasion - Authority - Statute - Motorist - Alcohol test - Specimen - Production - Requirement - Compliance by motorist - Wording of requirement - Whether garda requiring specimen of blood or urine must inform motorist of section of enactment which authorises requirement - Statutory consequences of failure to provide specimen fully explained to motorist - Disclosure of relevant section unnecessary - (235/95 - Supreme Court - 1/11/95)

|Brennan v. Director of Public Prosecutions|

ROAD TRAFFIC

Motorist

Alcohol test - Specimen - Production - Requirement - Compliance by motorist - Wording of requirement - Whether garda requiring specimen of blood or urine must inform motorist of section of enactment which authorises requirement - Statutory consequences of failure to provide specimen fully explained to motorist - Disclosure of relevant section unnecessary - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 13 - (235/95 - Supreme Court - 1/11/95)

|Brennan v. Director of Public Prosecutions|

GARDA SIOCHANA

Powers

Exercise - Motorist - Specimen - Provision - Requirement made by garda pursuant to statute - Compliance by motorist - Requirement and conviction valid although motorist not informed that requirement made pursuant to s. 13 of Act of 1978 - (235/95 - Supreme Court - 1/11/95)

|Brennan v. Director of Public Prosecutions|

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 1st day of November, 1995 by O'FLAHERTY J. [NEM DISS]

2 This is an appeal brought by Derek Brennan from the decision of the High Court (Barr J.) of the 10th July, 1995 arising on a case stated by the President of the District Court, Judge Smithwick, on the 25th January, 1995. The case stated recites that on the 9th June, 1994 Mr. Brennan appeared before Judge Smithwick to answer a complaint that he drove a mechanically propelled vehicle when he had consumed an excess of alcohol, contrary to s. 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as amended.

3 Garda Patrick Ambrose gave evidence that on the 28th October, 1993 he saw the appellant driving a motor car at Merrion Square, Dublin, which driving, as described by him, was erratic; he stopped him and arrested him for being in breach of s. 49 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961and told him so. The appellant was brought to Pearse Street Garda Station, Dublin. A doctor was called and it was explained to him that he was required to permit the doctor to give a specimen of his blood or, at his option, to provide a specimen of his urine. Garda Ambrose went on to state that a failure or refusal to comply with the requirement so made was itself an offence and that the penalty for same if convicted in the District Court was imprisonment for a period of up to six months or a fine of up to £1,000 or both such imprisonment and fine.

4 Garda Ambrose gave evidence that a urine sample was duly provided by the appellant and that there was compliance with the provisions of s. 21 of the Road Traffic Act, 1978.

5 It is clear that at no stage did Garda Ambrose say that this requirement was being made under s. 13 of the 1978 Act. A submission was made to the President that this was a fatal flaw in the prosecution case.

6 The learned President stated that he was satisfied that Garda Ambrose had quoted almost verbatim the wording of s. 13 of the Act, and that in setting out the consequences of a failure or refusal to Mr. Brennan, Garda Ambrose had made it clear to the accused that failure to comply carried penal consequences and he held that in those circumstances Garda Ambrose did not have to refer specifically to s. 13. He said that he was satisfied that the legislature never intended that the particular section would have to be quoted. He said that he was satisfied that the point was a technical one and that as long as the basic provisions of the section were outlined and the accused was made aware of the basis on...