DPP v Brady
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice O'Hanlon |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 1991 |
| Neutral Citation | 1991 WJSC-HC 388 |
| Docket Number | [1990 No. 850 S.S.],No. 850 S.S./1990 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 15 February 1991 |
BETWEEN
AND
1991 WJSC-HC 388
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
CRIMINAL LAW
Arrest
Validity - Condition precedent - Garda - Opinion - Formation - Proof - Incapacity of motorist - Motorist charged with drunken driving - Alcohol test positive - (1990/850 SS - O'Hanlon J. - 15/2/91) - [1991] 1 I.R. 337
|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Brady|
ROAD TRAFFIC
Motorist
Alcohol test - Condition precedent - Arrest - Validity - Condition - Formation of opinion by arresting garda - Proof - Sufficiency - Incapacity of motorist - (1990/850 SS - O'Hanlon J. - 15/2/91) - [1991] 1 I.R. 337
|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Brady|
GARDA SIOCHANA
Arrest
Validity - Condition precedent - Opinion - Formation - Proof - Incapacity of motorist - Motorist charged with drunken driving - Alcohol test positive - (1990/850 SS - O'Hanlon J. - 15/2/91)
|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Brady|
EVIDENCE
Quantum
Offence - Commission - Garda - Opinion - Proof - Arrest - Authority - Condition precedent - Motorist thought to be under influence of intoxicant - Motorist thought to be incapable of having proper control of car - Proof that opinion formed after positive breath test - Road Traffic Act, 1961, s. 49 - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 12 - (1990/850 SS - O'Hanlon J. - 15/2/91) - [1991] 1 I.R. 337
|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Brady|
Citations:
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(2)
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S10
ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(6)
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S12
ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S12(2)
DPP V GILMORE 1981 ILRM 102
DPP V O'CONNOR 1985 ILRM 333
DPP V LYNCH UNREP O'HANLON 7.11.90
Judgment of Mr. Justice O'Hanlondelivered the 15th day of February, 1991.
This is an appeal by way of Case Stated against the decision of District Justice Desmond Hogan to dismiss a charge brought against the Respondent of driving a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while his blood alcohol level exceeded the limit prescribed by Section 49 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by Section 10 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978.
The Respondent was stopped by a Garda check-point on the 19th January, 1990, at which stage Sergeant White noticed that the driver's eyes were bloodshot, that his speech was slurred and that his appearance was untidy. He required the Respondent to furnish him with a specimen of his breath and informed him that failure or refusal to do so was an offence. The Respondent complied with this request and the specimen of his breath proved positive. Sergeant White formed the opinion that the Respondent was unfit to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle due to the consumption of intoxicating liquor. He then informed the Respondent that he was arresting him on suspicion of drunken driving under Section 49 (6) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as amended, and also told him that he was being arrested for driving while drunk.
On arrival at the Garda Station the Respondent was required to provide for a registered medical practitioner then designated, a specimen of his blood or a specimen of his urine. The Respondent elected to provide a specimen of his blood. Evidence was given that on analysis this revealed that the Respondent had at the time a concentration of 177 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood - considerably in excess of the permitted limit referred to in Section 49 of the Act.
The only flaw in the prosecution case, relied upon by the learned District Justice in deciding to dismiss the charge, related to the absence of formal proof that Sergeant White, when requiring the Respondent to comply with the breathalyser test, had formed the opinion that the Respondent had consumedintoxicating liquor.
Section 12 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, authorises a member of the Garda Siochana to require a person in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place to provide a specimen of his breath by exhaling into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP v Duffy
...COSTELLO 10.6.1980 1980/6/1106 ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S12 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S12 ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S12(2) DPP V BRADY 1991 1 IR 337 DPP V BREHENY UNREP SUPREME 2.3.1993 1993/2/255 DPP V FANAGHAN UNREP DENHAM 18.12.1991 1998/15/5477 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S10 Synopsis Road......
-
DPP v Slattery
...of that opinion prior to the exercise of the power must be proved by ‘express evidence’ [see Director of Public Prosecutions v. Brady [1991] 1 I.R. 337 at p. 339] of the garda concerned in order to comply with the provisions of the statute. ‘Express evidence’ of the formation of an opinion ......
-
DPP v Quirke
...ACT 1994 S12(1)(A) DPP V BREHENY UNREP SUPREME 2.3.1993 1993/2/255 HOBBS V HURLEY UNREP COSTELLO 10.6.1980 1980/6/1106 DPP V BRADY 1991 1 IR 337 DPP V CAREY 1970 AC 1072 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S2(4) ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S6 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S01(1) DPP V BRADY 1991 1 IR 337 CRIMINA......
-
DPP (At The Suit of Garda Eamonn Long) v McGovern
...in Director of Public Prosecutions v Gilmore [1981] ILRM 102 and the High Court decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Brady [1991] 1 IR 337 and having considered the evidence, held that the Garda had no reasonable basis to conclude that the respondent was intoxicated to such an exte......