DPP v O'Connor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR JUSTICE FRANCIS D MURPHY
• Judgment Date: 09 March 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] IESC 35
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 09 March 1999

[1999] IESC 35

THE SUPREME COURT

O'FLAHERTY J

BARRINGTON J

KEANE J

MURPHY J

BARRON J

253/98

DPP v. O'CONNOR

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

BETWEEN:

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (AT THE SUIT OF GARDAANTHONY O'DRISCOLL

APPELLANT

AND

NOEL O'CONNOR

RESPONDENT

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S13(1)(b)(ii)

COUGHLAN, DPP V SWAN 1994 1 ILRM 314

Synopsis

Road Traffic

Drunk driving; urine sample; respondent had been arrested on suspicion of drunk driving and brought to a Garda station; respondent elected to provide a urine sample rather than a blood sample; respondent was unable to provide a urine sample within 15 minutes and was informed by the prosecutor that he would therefore have to provide a blood sample; the District Judge had dismissed the case against the respondent on the ground that he should have been allowed at least 30 minutes to provide a urine sample; whether District Judge had been correct; s.13(1)(b)(ii), Road Traffic Act, 1994.

Held: Election to provide a urine sample is exercised not by agreeing to the provision of such a sample but by the actual provision of it; requirement to provide a urine sample is coterminous with obligation to permit extraction of a blood specimen; no entitlement to any period of time within which to provide urine sample.

D.P.P. (O'Driscoll) v. O'Connor - Supreme Court: O'Flaherty J., Barrington J., Keane J., Murphy J., Barron J. - 09/03/1999 - [2000] 1 ILRM 60

Following arrest on suspicion of drunk driving, the election to provide a urine sample is exercised by the provision of the sample; to escape the obligation of permitting a blood specimen to be taken the person concerned must actually provide a specimen of urine. While a person who elected to give a urine sample was entitled to a reasonable time in order to give the sample, there is no statutory requirement for the allowance of time for the provision of a urine sample. The Supreme Court so held in reversing the decision of the High Court.

1 MR JUSTICE FRANCIS D MURPHYDELIVERED THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH 1999

2 The question of law - if it is a question of law - which arises in this case is the determination of the time limit within which a urine sample must be provided in accordance with the requirements of section 13(1)(b)(ii) of the Road Traffic Act 1994.

3 The question arises from a case stated by Joseph Mangan, a Judge of the District Court, on the 22nd day of January 1997 pursuant to the above entitled enactments.

4 The factual background to the issue as determined by the learned Judge is as follows. At the sitting of the District Court on the 8th February 1996 the Respondent, Noel O'Connor, attended to answer the charge of the Director that on the 17th September 1995 at Herbert Place in the City of Dublin that the Respondent had driven a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place whilst there was present in his body a quantity of alcohol, such that, within three hours after so driving, the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded a concentration of 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood. The facts proved or admitted are set out fully in the case stated but may be summarised as follows.

5 The Garda at whose suit the prosecution was brought, Garda O'Driscoll, gave evidence that on the 17th September 1995 he was on duty in a patrol car. At 1.40am he observed a motor car stopped at the traffic lights at Baggot Street Bridge. The vehicle failed to move off when the lights changed to green. The lights changed to red and when the green light came back on the car again failed to move off. Garda O'Driscoll got out of the patrol car and spoke to the driver. The Garda noticed that there was a very strong smell of alcohol from the car. The Respondent got out from the car. He was unsteady on his feet. He admitted to having some drinks. At 1.45am the Garda arrested the Respondent and brought him to Harcourt Terrace Garda Station where they arrived at 1.50am. Dr James Maloney, a designated doctor, was contacted at 1.51am. Dr...