DPP (Deegan) v Murphy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Aindrias Ó Caoimh
• Judgment Date: 22 July 2002
• Neutral Citation: [2002] IEHC 79
• Date: 22 July 2002
• Docket Number: No 866 S.S/2002
• Court: High Court

[2002] IEHC 79

THE HIGH COURT

Mr. Aindrias Ó Caoimh

No 866 S.S/2002

DPP (DEEGAN) v. MURPHY

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 52 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL

PROVISIONS ACT, 1961 (N0. 39 OF 1961)

Between:

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (AT THE SUIT OF GARDA NIALL DEEGAN)

Prosecutor

-and-

CELENE MURPHY

Accused

Citations:

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT, 1961 S52(1)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S13(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(8)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S13(1)(B)

CONROY V AG 1965 IR 411

DPP V MCGARRIGLE 1996 1 ILRM 271

DPP V MANGAN 2002 1 ILRM 417

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S13

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S14

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Case stated

Road traffic offences - Onus of proof - Failure to provide sample - Obligations of An Garda Siochana - Fair procedures - Whether failure to properly inform accused of consequential penalties - Road Traffic Act, 1961 - Road Traffic Act, 1994 (2000/866SS - O Caoimh J - 22/07/2002)

DPP v Murphy

Facts: The accused had been arrested pursuant to s.49(8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 as amended due to an alleged failure to provide a sample as provided for under section 13 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994. In the District Court it was accepted by the Garda that the accused had been informed of the fines and the terms of imprisonment applicable but had not informed the accused of the consequential disqualification from driving for a period of two years. It was submitted by counsel for the accused that on this basis the prosecution had not proved its case. The District Court judge submitted a case stated for the opinion of the High Court as to whether the provisions as set out in the Road Traffic Act, 1994 had been complied with.

Held by O Caoimh J in answering the case stated as follows. There was no obligation upon the relevant member of the Garda to inform the accused of the consequential disqualification order that would be made in the event of a conviction. The accused had been appropriately informed of the penalties for the failure or refusal to provide a sample. The accused had not been misled as to the penalty attaching to the offence. The District Court judge was correct in his opinion that section 13 Road Traffic Act, 1994 had been adequately explained to the accused

.

1 Mr. Justice Aindrias Ó Caoimh delivered the 22nd day of July 2002 .

2 This matter comes before me by way of a consultative case stated pursuant to s. 52 (1) of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961by Judge Gerard Haughton, a judge of the Dublin Metropolitan District Court.

3 The accused stands charged before the District Court of an offence contrary to s. 13 (3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994(the Act of 1994) of refusing to permit a registered medical practitioner to take from her a specimen of her blood in circumstances where she was arrested pursuant to s. 49 (8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961(as amended) and was required by the prosecuting member of An Garda Síochána pursuant to s. 13 (1) (b) of the Act of 1994 to permit a designated doctor to take from her a specimen of her blood, or at her option, to provide for the designated doctor a specimen of her urine.

4 The applicant was arrested at Clyde Road, Dublin on 1st April, 2001 and the case stated recites the fact that the learned judge of the District Court is satisfied that the arrest was lawful and that no issue arises therefrom. It is stated that the accused arrived at Donnybrook garda station at 12.12 a.m. and at the garda station the Custody Regulations were complied with and Dr. Hooper was called to the station as a designated doctor and that he arrived there at 12.49 a.m. The accused was introduced to Dr. Hooper and he was introduced to her as the designated doctor.

5 At 1.03 a.m. Garda Deegan made a requirement of the accused under s. 13 (1) (b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994to permit Dr. Hooper to take from her a specimen of her blood, or at her option, to provide for Dr. Hooper a specimen of her urine. Garda Deegan indicated the consequences of failure or refusal to comply with this requirement, namely that failure or refusal to comply with the requirement or failure or refusal to comply with a requirement of the doctor in relation to the taking under the subsection of a specimen of blood or the provision under the subsection of a specimen of urine was a specific offence under s. 13 of the Act of 1994 and the penalty on summary conviction was a fine not exceeding £1,000 or a term of imprisonment not exceeding 6 months or to both. This was explained in plain language and it is recorded that the accused replied "O.K. I refuse - one thousand pounds."

6 Garda Deegan accepted in evidence that he did not explain to the accused that a consequence of any conviction was that, in addition to any of the penalties that might be imposed by the court, she would be disqualified for driving for a period of not less than two years.

7 On the basis of this conceded failure to explain the consequential disqualification it was submitted by counsel for the accused that the prosecution had not proved its case in that while the garda had explained the penalties he had failed to explain to the accused that as a consequence of a conviction for failing or refusing to comply with his requirement under s. 13 (1) (b) of...