DPP v Doyle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1996] IEHC 19
• Date: 01 January 1997
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 959 S.S./1995

DPP v. DOYLE

IN THE MATTER OF THE COURTS ACTS, 1924 TO 1981;

AND IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 52 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL

PROVISIONS) ACT, 1961

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

COMPLAINANT

AND

MOIRA DOYLE

DEFENDANT

[1996] IEHC 19

959 S.S./1995

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

ROAD TRAFFIC

Case stated - charge in summons - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 1978 - non-compliance with s.13(3) of the Act - failure to give blood/urine sample - charge in summons referred to refusal to give sample - whether s.13(3) creates two types of offences by use of words "refusal" and "failure" - statutory interpretation - Held: The section does not create more than one offence - High Court - Geoghegan J. - 09/10/1996) - [1996] 3 IR 579 - [1997] 1 ILRM 379

|DPP v. Doyle|

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1984 S5

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(6)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(1)

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S38

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

DPP V HAND UNREP SUPREME 10.11.92 1992/11/3523

DPP V MCGARRIGLE UNREP SUPREME 22.6.87 1991/11/2775

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Geoghegan delivered on the 9th day of October 1996

2 This is a Consultative Case Stated sent forward to the High Court by Judge Murrough B. Connellan sitting at the Dublin Metropolitan District Court. Two questions of law are asked in the Case Stated and they arise out of a prosecution for an offence under Section 13(3) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978as amended by Section 5 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1984. The precise charge in the summons was that the Defendant on the 21st May, 1992 at Terenure Road East in the said district, being a person arrested under Section 49(6) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, and brought to a Garda station having been required by Fergal O'Brien, a Member of the Garda Siochana, pursuant to Section 13(1) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978to permit a designated Registered Medical Practitioner to take from her a specimen of her blood or, at her option, to provide for the designated Registered Medical Practitioner, a specimen of her urine, did fail to comply with the said requirement contrary to Section 13(3) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act. 1978as amended by Section 5 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1984.

3 It is not necessary to set out in this judgment the facts proved. It is sufficient to state that the evidence established in accordance with Section 13 of the 1978 Act that Garda O'Brien required the Defendant either to permit Dr. Maloney to take from her a specimen of her blood or, at her option, to provide for Dr. Maloney a specimen of her urine, that the Guard "outlined in plain man's language to the Defendant the consequences of her failure to comply with the said requirements" and that the Defendant refused to comply with the said requirement.

4 Counsel for the Defendant argued that his client was entitled to an acquittal because although the evidence may have established a "refusal" it did not establish a "failure". Counsel submitted that there was no charge or accusation of refusal in the summons but only of a failure. It was argued in the District Court and again before this Court that different considerations would have to apply to a failure as opposed to a refusal and that evidence of a refusal would necessarily involve a cross-examination which would substantially differ from the cross-examination had the evidence been that of a failure as set out in the charge.

5 Both in the District Court and in this Court, Counsel on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions submitted that Section 13(3) of the 1978 Act created one offence and evidence of refusal was sufficient so as to enable the Defendant to be convicted in respect of the offence for which she was charged, i.e. the offence of failure. At the request of the Defendant, the learned Judge of the District Court posed the following questions for the determination of this Court:

6 1. Whether Section 13 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978creates more than one offence by use of the words "refuses or fails" and if so, does evidence of refusal go sufficiently far, to allow safely, a conviction under a summons specifying the offence as failure?

7 2. Whether evidence of a refusal to comply with the requirement of a Member of An Garda Siochana to permit a designated Registered Medical Practitioner to take from a person, a specimen of his blood or at the option of the person, to provide for the designated Registered Medical Practitioner, a specimen of the person's urine; is sufficient to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the person has failed to comply with the said requirement and is sufficient evidence so as to enable the Court to convict?

8 The two questions as posed involve...