DPP v Desmond Doyle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 05 March 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] IEHC 45
• Docket Number: [1996 No. 694 SS],No.694SS/1996
• Court: High Court
• Date: 05 March 1997

DPP v. DOYLE

CASE STATED

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT, 1857 AS

EXTENDED BY SECTION 51 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS)

ACT, 1961

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

APPELLANT/PROSECUTOR

AND

DESMOND DOYLE

RESPONDENT/ACCUSED

[1997] IEHC 45

No.694SS/1996

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

[1997] 1 IR 422

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(6)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(1)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1984 S5

COURTS (NO 3) ACT 1986 S1(3)(a)

DUGGAN, STATE V EVANS 1978 112 ILTR 61

DCR r88

COURTS (NO 3) ACT 1986 S1(6)

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegandelivered on the 5th day of March, 1997.

2 This is an Appeal by way of case stated by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the dismissal of a summons by Judge James Paul McDonnell, a Judge of the District Court assigned to the Dublin Metropolitan District. The charge in the summons was as follows:-

"That you, on the 17th day of September, 1994 at Cavendish Row, Dublin 1 in the said District being a person arrested under Section 49(6) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961and brought to a Garda Station, having been required byAlan Higgins, a member of an Garda Siochana pursuant to Section 13(1) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, to permit a designated registered medical practitioner to take from you a specimen of your blood, or at your option, to provide for the designated registered medical practitioner a specimen of your urine, did refuse to comply with the said requirement, contrary to Section 13(3) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, as amended by Section 5 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1984."

3 The learned District Court Judge noted that the summons did not disclose an offence in that he took judicial notice of the fact that there was no Garda station at Cavendish Row. The solicitor for the Prosecution requested the Judge to permit an amendment to the summons in order to insert in lieu of "Cavendish Row, Dublin 1" the words "Fitzgibbon Street Garda Station". The Judge refused to make the amendment and dismissed the charge on the merits. In the case stated he is asked the following questions:-

4 1. Was I correct in law in ruling that the summons before me was an invalid summons by virtue of it's non compliance with the requirements of Section 1(3)(a) of the Courts (No.3) Act, 1986?

5 2. If the answer to 1 above is "yes", whether I was correct in law in holding that my discretion to amend the Summons was limited to those circumstances where, inter alia, the particulars of the offence disclosed an offence known to the criminal law, albeit an offence whose particulars...