DPP v O'Donoghue

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice O'Hanlon
• Judgment Date: 15 February 1991
• Neutral Citation: 1991 WJSC-HC 452
• Date: 15 February 1991
• Docket Number: No. 27 S.S./1991

1991 WJSC-HC 452

THE HIGH COURT

No. 27 S.S./1991

DPP v. O'DONOGHUE

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

PROSECUTOR/APPELLANT

AND

EAMON O'DONOGHUE

DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(3)

MARTIN V QUINN 1980 IR 244

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(3)(a)

DPP V FALLON 1978 IR 13

DPP V HYLAND IRISH TIMES 28.1.91

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13

Synopsis:

ROAD TRAFFIC

Motorist

Alcohol test - Requirement - Refusal - Offence - Proof - Failure - Status of medical practitioner - Relevant point in time - Road Traffic Act, 1961, s. 49 - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 13 - (1991/27 SS - O'Hanlon J. - 15/2/91) - [1991] 1 I.R. 448

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. O'Donoghue|

EVIDENCE

Onus of proof

Prosecution - Road traffic - Motorist - Alcohol test - Requirement - Refusal - Offence - Proof - Failure - Status of medical practitioner - Relevant point in time - (1991/27 SS - O'Hanlon J. - 15/2/91) - [1991] 1 I.R. 448

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. O'Donoghue|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice O'Hanlondelivered the 15th day of February, 1991.

2 This is an appeal by way of Case Stated against the decision of District Justice Windle to dismiss a charge brought against the Respondent of failure to permit a designated registered medical practitioner to take from him a specimen of his blood, or at the option of the Respondent, to provide for the designated registered medical practitioner, a specimen of the Respondent's urine, contrary to theprovisions of Section 13 (3) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978.

3 The case turns on a point raised by the learned District Justice at the close of the prosecution case as to whether an essential link in the chain of proof to lead to a conviction was missing. This concerned the obligation on a person arrested, when the other requirements of Section 13 of the Act of 1978 have been met, to permit "a designated registered medical practitioner" to take from him a specimen of his blood, or to provide for "a registered medical practitioner" a specimen of his urine.

4 The evidence given in the District Court, as recited in the Case Stated, shows that Dr. Lionel Williams was introduced to the Respondent by the Sergeant-in-Charge in the Station as "the designated registered medical practitioner"; that Dr. Williams was asked during the hearing of the District Court proceedings a rhetorical question: "I think you are a registered medical practitioner?", to which he replied, "I am". The next question addressed to him was as follows: "Were you designated by the Gardai on the night in question?", to which he replied: "I was".

5 The learned District Justice took the view that these questions and answers failed...