DPP (Riordan) v Molloy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Supreme Court
• Judge: McCracken J.
• Judgment Date: 28 February 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] IESC 17
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 34 of 2000]
• Date: 28 February 2003

[2003] IESC 17

THE SUPREME COURT

McGuinness J.

Geoghegan J.

McCracken J.

34/00

DPP (RIORDAN) v. MOLLOY

In the matter of Section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 And in the matter of Section 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

(at the suit of Garda Donnacha Riordan)

Appellant

and

ALAN MOLLOY

Respondent

Citations:

SUMMARY JUSRISDICTION ACT 1857 S2

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S13

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S13(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S13(1)

DPP V FORBES 1994 2 IR 542

DPP V MCCREESH 1992 2 IR 239

ALDERSON V BOOTH 1969 QB 216

Synopsis:

CRIMINAL LAW

Arrest

Arrest - Arrest on private driveway - Whether arrest unlawful - Road Traffic Act, 1994 section 13 (34/2000 - Supreme Court - 28/2/2003)

DPP v Molloy

- [2004] 3 IR 321

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 28th day of February, 2003 by McCracken J.

2 This was an appeal by way of case stated by Judge John P. Brophy arising out of the prosecution of the respondent for certain offences under Section 13 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994.

3 The net point at issue is whether the respondent was lawfully arrested. The background to the case is clearly and helpfully set out in the case stated and it is not necessary to repeat the entire of it in this judgment. Briefly, the prosecuting Garda was on duty as an observer in a patrol car at a checkpoint near Clonee, Co. Meath. A car approached the checkpoint, stopped about a hundred meters from it, turned, and headed back towards Clonee. The Gardai pursued this car, which drove into a gateway of a house in Clonee. The Gardai followed the car into the driveway and found the respondent on his own in the car. He was asked for his name and address, which he gave, and then told the Gardai that, "it was his house that he was parked in front of". His speech was incoherent and slurred and there was a smell of alcohol off his breath, and he was asked to step out of the car. When he did so, he stumbled, and had to be supported by one of the Garda. At this stage the prosecuting Garda formed the opinion that the respondent was incapable of having control of a vehicle, due to consumption of intoxicating liquor, and told the respondent that he was of the opinion that the respondent had committed an offence under one of several sections of the Road Traffic Acts and explained to the respondent that he was arresting him for drunk driving.

4 The Garda then cautioned the respondent in the normal way and in response, the respondent told the Garda that he the Garda could not arrest him, as the arrest was an unlawful arrest since the Garda had followed him into his driveway. The respondent became abusive, had to be handcuffed, and was taken to Dunboyne Garda Station. The respondent refused to give a blood or urine sample and was charged with an offence under Section 13(3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994. This charge was dismissed in the District Court on the grounds that the arrest of the respondent had been unlawful. The District Judge agreed to state a case for the High Court as to whether he was correct in law in dismissing this charge on the ground that the arrest of the respondent had been unlawful, as the same had taken place on his own private driveway.

5 The offence with which the respondent was charged was that he refused or failed to comply with the requirement to permit a designated doctor to take a specimen of his blood or to provide a specimen of urine. The requirement to do so, under Section 13(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, only arises where the person concerned has been arrested, and there can be no doubt that if there was no lawful arrest of the respondent in the present case, then he was not obliged...