DPP v Connell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1998
• Date: 01 January 1998
• Docket Number: [1997 No. 340 S.S.]
• Court: High Court

Director of Public Procutions v. Connell

In the matter of s. 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act

1961.

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

and

Francis Connell

Accused

[1997 No. 340 S.S.]

High Court

Criminal law - Road Traffic offence - Arrest - Drunken driving - Incorrect citation of statutory provision by arresting garda - Whether arrest rendered invalid by incorrect citation - Whether accused understood reason for arrest sufficiently to render arrest valid - Road Traffic Act, 1961 (No. 24), s. 49(8) - Road Traffic Act, 1994 (No. 7), s. 10.

Section 49(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, inserted by s. 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994., provides:-

"A person shall not drive or attempt to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while there is present in his body a quantity of alcohol such that, within 3 hours after so driving or attempting to drive, the concentration of alcohol in his blood will exceed a concentration of 80 milligrammes of alcoholper 100 millilitres of blood."

Section 49(8) provides:-

"A member of the Garda Síochána may arrest without warrant a person who in the member's opinion is committing or has committed an offence under this section."

The accused was charged before the District Court with the offence of drunken driving contrary to s. 49(2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by s. 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994. In the course of the proceedings before the District Court it appeared that the arresting garda had not correctly cited the empowering statutory provision when arresting the accused. The garda had purported to arrest the accused under "s. 49(8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994". At the end of the evidence before the District Court, the solicitor for the accused submitted that the arrest was invalid by reason of the incorrect citation, and that because of the invalidity of the arrest, all subsequent evidence which derived from it was also invalid.

The District Judge stated a case for the opinion of the High Court pursuant to s. 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961. The questions of law for the opinion of the High Court were as follows:-

"1. Whether the arrest, as made by Sergeant Connolly in purporting reliance on the provisions of s. 49(8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, is a valid arrest?

• 2. In the event that the arrest is invalid, is the State precluded from relying upon any subsequent evidence obtained in consequence of such invalid arrest?"

Held by the High Court (Geoghegan J.), in answering the first question of the case stated in the affirmative, 1, that the only inference which could be drawn from the statutory citation given by the garda was that it was obvious beyond a doubt that the garda was referring to and intended to arrest under s. 49(8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, even though he incorrectly gave the citation and that the District Court Judge would have had to draw that conclusion.

2. That an arrested person must have knowledge of the reason for his arrest and that, on the facts set out in the case stated, the accused knew the reason for his arrest, sufficiently to render the arrest valid.

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Mooney [1992] 1 I.R. 548 applied.Christie v. Leachinsky[1947] A.C. 573 approved.

3. That the evidence that the garda had informed the accused in layman's language that he was being arrested for drunk driving was evidence of sufficient communication of the reason for the arrest.

Obiter dictum: that having regard to the fact that a breath test was taken, and proved positive, it was not even necessary to state the reason for the arrest.

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Mooney [1992] 1 I.R. 548 approved.

Cases mentioned in this report:-

Christie v. Leachinsky [1947] A.C. 573; [1947] 1 All E.R. 567 (H.L.).

Director of Public...