DPP v Connors
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1992 |
| Docket Number | [1989 No. 407 SS] |
| Date | 01 January 1992 |
| Court | High Court |
High Court
Cases mentioned in this report:—
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Collins [1981] I.L.R.M. 447.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Corrigan (Unreported, High Court, Finlay P., 21st July, 1980).
Director of Public Prosecutions v. McGuoy (Unreported, High Court, Finlay P., 25th July, 1983).
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Walsh [1985] I.L.R.M. 243.
Hobbs v. Hurley (Unreported, High Court, Costello J., 10th June, 1980).
Criminal law - Road traffic - Alcohol test - Analysis of blood sample by Medical Bureau of Road Safety - Obligation of Bureau to forward to accused a copy of prescribed certificate of result of analysis - Presumption of compliance by the Bureau with such obligation - Whether presumption rebutted by evidence that the certificate was not received by the accused - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978 (No. 19), s. 22, sub-s. 3 and s. 23, sub-s. 2.
Case Stated.
The facts are summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of Lavan J., post, together with the relevant legislative provisions.
The District Court proceedings were heard on the 29th September and the 11th November, 1988. The complaint against the defendant was dismissed. At the request of the complainant a case stated, dated the 29th June 1989, requested the opinion of the High Court as to the correctness of the District Justice's decision.
The case was heard by the High Court (Lavan J.) on the 15th February, 1990.
Section 22 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, provides for the analysis by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety ("the Bureau") of samples taken from persons suspected of driving with excessive alcohol in their blood. Sub-section 3 requires the Bureau to complete a certificate relating to the analysis and to forward it to the relevant garda station. The Bureau is also obliged to forward a copy of the certificate to the person from whom the sample was taken. Section 23, sub-s. 2 provides that the certificate "shall, until the contrary is shown, be sufficient evidence of compliance by the Bureau with all the requirements which the Bureau is obliged to comply with . . ."
The defendant was charged with an offence under s. 49, sub-ss. 2 and 4 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as amended. At his trial he gave evidence that he had never received a copy of the certificate relating to the sample of blood taken from him.
Evidence was given on behalf of the prosecution that a copy had been sent by registered post addressed to the defendant which had been accepted and signed for by an inhabitant of a bungalow adjacent to the campsite where the defendant lived. The defendant's evidence was that there were a number of persons of the same name living at the same campsite and that he did not live in the bungalow to which the copy certificate had been sent. The District Justice held that the requirements of s. 22, sub-s. 3 had not been complied with and dismissed the charge.
On appeal by way of case stated it was
Held by Lavan J., in allowing the appeal and remitting the case to the District Court, 1, that the obligation of the Bureau to forward a copy of the certificate did not amount to an absolute obligation to ensure receipt.
2. That evidence of non-receipt was not of itself sufficient to rebut the presumption of compliance by the Bureau.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Walsh [1985] I.L.R.M. 243, Director of Public Prosecutions v. McGuoy (Unreported, High Court, Finlay P., 25th July, 1983) andDirector of Public Prosecutions v. Collins [1981] I.L.R.M. 447 followed.
Cur. adv. vult.
| Lavan J. |
This is a case stated by District Justice Hubert Wine assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District pursuant to the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction (Ireland) Act, 1857, as extended by the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961. It arises from a charge brought by the complainant against the defendant which came for hearing before the learned District Justice that the defendant on the 14th January, 1988, was driving a mechanically propelled vehicle when 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 100 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to s. 49, ss. 2 and 4 (a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by s. 10 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978. During the course of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution before the learned District Justice the following evidence was given by Garda Malachy Crowley and the learned District Justice found as follows:—
The complainant, a member of An Garda Síochána attached to Dun Laoghaire garda station took up duty at 10 p.m. on Thursday the 14th January, 1988, in the garda district patrol car accompanied by Garda Paddy Bohan. At approximately 11.40 p.m., as a result of information received, he went to Crosswaithe Park North, Dun Laoghaire, a public place where he saw motor van registered number SIC 731 stopped and where he observed Detective Garda Gerard McDonnell speaking to the driver of the van. The complainant spoke to the defendant, the driver of the van, who gave his correct name and address and who admitted driving the van along Crosswaithe Park North, Dun Laoghaire, approximately five minutes earlier. The complainant observed that the defendant's eyes were bloodshot, that he was slouched in the driver's seat and that there was a smell of intoxicating liquor from the defendant's breath. The defendant admitted to the complainant that he had been drinking earlier on that evening by reason whereof the complainant formed the opinion that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial