DPP v Hand

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Finlay C.J.
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1994
• Neutral Citation: 1992 WJSC-SC 3523
• Docket Number: [S.C. Nos. 362 of 1991 and 225 of 1992]
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 01 January 1994

1992 WJSC-SC 3523

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

Hederman J.

O'Flaherty J.

Egan J.

Blayney J.

362/91

225/92

DPP v. HAND

D.P.P.

.V.

HAND

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S13

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S13(1)(b)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(6)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S12(3)

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S13(3)

DPP V MCGARRIGLE UNREP HIGH 22.6.87 1991/11/2775

Synopsis:

ROAD TRAFFIC

Motorist

Alcohol test - Specimen - Production - Requirement - Refusal - Consequences - Statutory penalties - Wording of requirement - Whether garda requiring specimen must inform motorist of consequences of such refusal - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, s. 13 - (362/91, 225/92 - Supreme Court - 10/11/92)

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Hand|

GARDA SIOCHANA

Powers

Exercise - Requirement - Expression - Manner - Motorist - Alcohol test - Motorist required to provide specimen of blood or urine - Wording of requirement - Necessary reference to statute authorising requirement - Unnecessary that consequences of refusal to comply with requirement be mentioned - (362/91 , 225/92 - Supreme court - 10/11/92) - [1994] 1 I.R. 577

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Hand|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Require"

Garda - Powers - Exercise - Motorist - Alcohol test - Motorist required to provide specimen of blood or urine - Wording of requirement - Necessary reference to statute authorising requirement - Unnecessary that consequences of refusal to comply with requirement be mentioned - (362/91, 225/92 - Supreme Court - 10/11/92) - [1994] 1 I.R. 577

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Hand|

1 Ex-tempore judgment of Finlay C.J. delivered the 10th day of November, 1992.

2 This is an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions against a decision made in the High Court on a case stated by a Judge of the District Court concerning a prosecution pursuant to Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act, being a prosecution involving an allegation that a person was driving a mechanically propelled vehicle with an excess of alcohol in their system.

3 The question which was raised in the case stated by way of appeal was as follows - whether in a prosecution under Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961where a requirement is made under Section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 1978 of an accused person to provide a specimen of blood or at his option a specimen of urine it is necessary for the prosecution to prove in evidence that the consequence of the failure to comply with such a requirement under Section 13(b) of the Road Traffic Act were explained to the accused person. The question so provided is a pure question of law and arose in a case where evidence had not been given on behalf of the prosecution that the person had been warned of the consequences of failure to comply with the requirement made to him under Section 13(b). No other issues of fact arose which affect the legal decision on this question. Section 13 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act 1978provides that

"Where a person arrested under section 49(6) of the Principal Act or section 12(3) has been brought to a Garda station, a member of the Garda Siochana may at his discretion do either or both of the following"

4 and then at (b)

"require the person either to permit a designated registered medical practitioner to take from the person a specimen of his blood or, at the option of the person, to provide for the...