O'Broin v District Justice Ruane

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: JUSTICE KEVIN LYNCH
• Judgment Date: 13 January 1989
• Neutral Citation: 1989 WJSC-HC 637
• Docket Number: [1988 No. 154 J.R.]
• Date: 13 January 1989

1989 WJSC-HC 637

THE HIGH COURT

No.154/1988

O'BROIN v. RUANE

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI BY WAY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

DECLAN O'BROIN

v

DISTRICT JUSTICE JARLATH RUANE

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S21

CONSTITUTION ART 38.1

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S21(4)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S21(1)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S21(2)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S21(3)

Synopsis:

EVIDENCE

Onus of proof

Criminal charge - Offence - Proof - Presumption - Statutory procedure for preparation of prosecution evidence - Statutory presumption of compliance with statutory procedure - Onus of disproof placed on defendant - Enactment creating presumption not shown to be invalid - ~See~ Criminal Law, trial - (1988/154 JR - Lynch J. - 13/1/89) [1989] ILRM 732 - [1989] IR 214

|O'Broin v. Ruane|

NATURAL JUSTICE

Fair procedures

Offence - Trial - Prosecution - Proofs - Statutory procedures for preparation of prosecution proofs - Statutory presumption of compliance with statutory procedures - Onus of disproof placed on defendant - Enactment creating statutory presumption not shown to be invalid - ~See~ Criminal Law, trial - (1988/154 JR - Lynch J. - 13/1/89) [1989] ILRM 732 - [1989] IR 214

|O'Broin v. Ruane|

CRIMINAL LAW

Trial

Procedure - Cross-examination - Curtailment - Fair procedures - Road traffic - Alcohol test - Statutory provisions for delivery of specimens to Medical Bureau - Witness asked about handling of specimens - Statutory presumption of compliance with statutory provisions - Onus of disproof placed on defendant - Questions ruled impermissible by District Justice - Judicial review - Minor error - Discretion of court not exercised in favour of convicted defendant - Statutory provisions not invalid - Section 21 of the Act of 1978 provides for the steps to be taken by a medical practitioner who has obtained a specimen of blood or urine from a person - The section states that such practitioner must divide the specimen into two parts, place each part in a container, seal the container and complete the prescribed form - The section provides that one of the containers shall be offered to such person and that the other shall be forwarded to the Medical Bureau with the completed form - Sub-section 4 states that in a prosecution under Part III of the Act it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that there has been compliance with the provisions of sub-ss. 1–3 of the section - At the trial of the applicant in the District Court on a charge that he had committed an offence under Part III of the Act, the solicitor acting for the applicant started to question the prosecuting garda about the steps taken in relation to a specimen obtained from the applicant - The District Justice ruled that such cross-examination was impermissible in view of the terms of sub-s. 4 of section 21 - The applicant was convicted and, having obtained leave, he applied to the High Court for an order of certiorari quashing his conviction on the ground that, in so ruling, the District Justice acted in excess of jurisdiction, and on the ground that sub-s. 4 was invalid having regard to the provisions of Article 38.1 of the Constitution - Held, in dismissing the application without awarding costs, that the applicant's solicitor was entitled to ask the witness for the prosecution, in a general way without mentioning specific steps, about the procedure followed in the Garda station in relation to the specimen obtained from the applicant - Held, however, that the error made by the District Justice was one made within the exercise of his jurisdiction and that the court would not exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant - Held that such error did not amount to a lack of fair procedures or a breach of natural justice - Held that the applicant had not established that his trial had been conducted otherwise than in due course of law or contrary to the provisions of Article 38.1 of the Constitution - Extempore judgment - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 21 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 38 - (1988/154 JR - Lynch J. - 13/1/89) 1989 ILRM 732 [1989] IR 214

|O'Broin v. Ruane|

CONSTITUTION

Statute

Validity - Offence - Trial - Fair procedures - Statutory procedures for preparation of prosecution evidence - Statutory presumption of compliance with statutory procedures - Onus of disproof...