DPP (O'Brien) v Cormack

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'Flaherty J.
• Judgment Date: 22 January 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] IESC 20
• Docket Number: (251/98)
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 22 January 1999

[1999] IESC 20

THE SUPREME COURT

O'Flaherty J.,

Barrington J.,

Murphy J.,

(251/98)

DPP (O'BRIEN) v. CORMACK

AN CH ÚIRT UACHTARACH

BETWEEN:

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1857, AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 51 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISONS) ACT, 1961

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (AT THE SUIT OF GARDA NOEL O'BRIEN)

Appellant

.V.

PAUL CORMACK

Respondent

Synopsis

Road Traffic

Drunk driving; case stated; gardaí came to scene of accident in which one car was involved; car was in ditch; defendant was present; defendant admitted to driving the car and stated that the accident had happened ten minutes earlier; gardaí formed opinion that defendant was drunk; whether District Judge correct to dismiss charge on ground of insufficient evidence to show that vehicle had been driven in a public place within three hours; whether admission admissible in evidence.

Held: The evidence was conclusive that the defendant had been driving the car within three hours; case remitted to District Court.

D.P.P. (O'Brien) v. Cormack - Supreme Court: O'Flaherty J. (ex tempore), Barrington J, Murphy J. - 22/01/1999 - [1999] 1 ILRM 398

An admission made by an accused must be accepted as evidence despite the fact that he was drunk; it was open to the accused to contradict that admission by giving evidence at the trial. An admission made while intoxicated could be accepted as conclusive evidence that the accused was driving while drunk. The Supreme Court so held in allowing an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of 22 May 1998 given in answer to a case stated by District Judge Patwell.

1 Judgment (ex-tempore) delivered on the 22nd day of January, 1999, by O'Flaherty J.

2 The Court has heard very interesting and at the same time succinct submissions on each side of this case but since we have reached a clear conclusion as to the result we do not think that there is any need to reserve judgment.

3 This is an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the judgment and order of the High Court (Quirke J.) of 22nd May, 1998, in which he answered a question posed by District Judge Pattwell in a case stated for the opinion of the High Court in favour of the respondent, Paul Cormack.

4 The question posed for the opinion of the High Court was whether he was correct in law in dismissing the charge that had been brought against the respondent.

5 The case sets forth the facts very clearly, as well as the course of proceedings in the District Court. District Judge Pattwell recounts that at a sitting of his court at Cashel, Co. Tipperary on 21st May, 1997, Mr. Cormack appeared before him charged that he did on 11th April, 1997, at Prices Lot, Cashel, Co. Tipperary, drive a mechanically propelled motor car while there was an excess quantity of alcohol in his body, in other words drunk driving...