DPP v Hand

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeFinlay C.J.
Judgment Date01 January 1994
Neutral Citation1992 WJSC-SC 3523
Docket Number[S.C. Nos. 362 of 1991 and 225 of 1992]
CourtSupreme Court
Date01 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Brennan v DPP
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1996
    ...TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S21 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S13 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S50 DPP V MCGARRIGLE UNREP SUPREME 22.6.87 1991/11/2775 DPP V HAND 1994 1 IR 577 DPP, PEOPLE V QUILLIGAN 1986 IR 495 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S14 ROAD TRAFFIC (AMDT) ACT 1978 S13(3) ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(6) ROAD TRAFFIC......
  • DPP v Mangan
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 6 April 2001
    ...ACT 1978 S13 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S13(1)(b) DPP V MCGARRIGLE (NOT CIRC) 22.6.1987 1991/11/2775 BRENNAN V DPP 1996 1 ILRM 267 DPP V HAND 1994 1 IR 577 COUGHLAN, DPP V SWAN 1994 1 ILRM 314 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1978 S14 1 6th day of April 2001 by Keane C.J. [nem 2 This is a Consultative Case Sta......
  • DPP v Nicholas Reville
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 December 2000
    ...to the authorities of the Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Connell [1998] 3 I.R 63 and Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Hand [1994] 1 I.R. 577. In the former of these cases the prosecuting garda referred incorrectly to Section 49(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1994instead of Section 49(8......
  • DPP v Doyle
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 January 1997
    ...a failure. 5. That there was no reason to depart from the plain English meaning regarding the purpose of the section. D.P.P. v HandIR [1994] 1 I.R. 577 and D.P.P. v. McGarrigle (Unreported, Supreme Court, 22 June 1987) considered. 6. That the offence consisted of the non-compliance with the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT