DPP v CROOM-CARROLL(Case stated and Order only)

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 21 April 1999
• Neutral Citation: 2000 WJSC-HC 2371
• Date: 21 April 1999
• Docket Number: 1998 No. 1233
• Court: High Court

2000 WJSC-HC 2371

THE HIGH COURT

1998 No. 1233

DPP v. CROOM-CARROLL(Case stated and Order only)

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PROSECUTOR

AND

TATE CROOM-CARROLL

DEFENDANT

Citations:

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S52

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(2)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S10

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S12

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(8)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S13(1)(B)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S18(1)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S18(2)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S18(3)

AG V HOLLINGSWORTH 1973 107 ILTR 77

Synopsis

Road Traffic

Road traffic; case stated in High Court; interpretation of s. 18(1) Road Traffic Act, 1994; specimen of blood to determine concentration of alcohol in blood; whether "container" referred to in s. 18(1) refers to the glass bottle in which specimen held; whether "container" refers to box into which the glass bottle containing specimen is placed; whether box can be "container" for one purpose and glass bottle "container" for different purpose; whether defendant prejudiced by allowing counsel to put forward different interpretation of "container" to that put forward in court below; s. 18(1) Road Traffic Act, 1994.

Held: "Container" refers to box into which the glass bottle containing specimen is placed; however requirements of Act not complied with; therefore defendant not prejudiced by allowing counsel to put forward different interpretation of "container".

D.P.P. v. Croom-Carroll Supreme Court: Barrington J., Lynch J., Barron J. 24/06/1999

CONSULTATIVE CASE STATED

1 This is a consultative case stated by me Michael Pattwell, a Judge of the District Court, pursuant to the Provisions of Section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act. 1961, for the determination of the High Court.

2 1. At a sitting of the District Court held at Cashel District Court, County Tipperary on the 17 ^th day of June, 1998 at 11 o'clock the Defendant appeared before me to answer a complaint, the subject matter of a Summons served on him. The complaint was that the Defendant did on the 15 ^th day of January, 1998 at Racecourse. Cashel, Co. Tipperary, a public place, drive a mechanically propelled vehicle, to wit motor jeep registration K-572-BUH while 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 did exceed a concentration of 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to Section 49 (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as inserted by Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act 1994. The Summons upon which this complaint was laid is exhibited at Appendix 1.

3 2. At the said hearing the Director of Public Prosecutions was represented by Inspector Tadgh Browne. The accused was represented by Mr. Peter Reilly of James Reilly & Son. Solicitors.

4 3. The facts proved or admitted or agreed and as found by me were asfollows:

5 (a) On the 15 ^th day of January 1998 Garda Michael Mahony of Thurles Garda Station was operating a radar speed meter at Racecourse, Cashel, County Tipperary, a public place. Garda Mahony detected a jeep registration K 572 BUH travelling at 78 mph at a place where the general speed limit was 60 mph. Garda Mahony issued a fine on the spot notice to the driver of the jeep who gave his name as Tate Croom-Carroll, the Defendant, of Dromona House, Dundrum, Co. Tipperary. While talking to the Defendant, Garda Mahony got a smell of intoxicating liquor from his breath and his speech was slurred. He informed the Defendant of these observations, and at 11.10 p.m. he informed the Defendant that he was requiring him (the Defendant) to provide a specimen of his breath under Section 12 of the Road Traffic Act. 1994. Garda Mahony provided the apparatus and indicated to the Defendant the manner in which he was to comply with the requirement. The test proved positive. At 11.15 p.m. Garda Mahony arrested the Defendant under Section 49 (8) of the Road Traffic Acts, 1991 to 1995, as he had formed the opinion that the Defendant had committed an offence contrary to Section 49 (2) or (3) of the said Acts. Garda Mahony told the Defendant in ordinary language that he was being arrested for drunk driving.

6 (b) Garda Mahony conveyed the Defendant to Cashel Garda Station where they arrived at 11.25 p.m. On arrival there he introduced the Defendant to Garda Noel O'Brien who was the member in charge of the station. Garda Mahony informed Garda O'Brien of the reason for the arrest of the Defendant, and was present when Garda O'Brien informed the Defendant of his rights and handed him a notice setting out those rights. Garda O'Brien telephoned Dr. William Ryan who subsequently arrived at the station at 11.43 p.m. Garda Mahony introduced Dr. Ryan to theDefendant as a designated doctor and demanded from the Defendant that he permit Dr. Ryan to take from him a specimen of his blood or, at his option, a specimen of his urine under Section 13 (1) (b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994. Garda Mahony informed the Defendant that it was an offence not to comply with the requirement and further informed him of the penalties for such an offence. The Defendant agreed to provide a specimen of blood. Garda Mahony handed Dr. Ryan a sealed box issued by the...