DPP v Kemmy
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 1980 |
| Date | 25 March 1980 |
| Docket Number | [1979 No. 301 SS.] |
| Court | Supreme Court |
Completion of statutory form - Form to be completed and signed by doctor - Completed form to be sent to statutory body - Doctor completing and signing upper of two duplicate forms - Doctor's entries appearing instantaneously on lower duplicate - Lower duplicate sent to statutory body - Requirements of statute satisfied - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978 (No. 19), ss. 21, 23.
Section 23, sub-s. 3, of the Act of 1978 states that a certificate expressed to have been issued by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety pursuant to s. 22 of the Act shall be sufficient evidence, until the contrary is shown, of the facts certified to in it with regard to the concentration of alcohol found by the Bureau in a specimen of urine which has been sent to the Bureau pursuant to s. 21 of the Act. A medical practitioner who receives a specimen of urine pursuant to the provisions of Part III of the Act is obliged by sub-s. 1 of s. 21 to complete and sign a prescribed form stating (inter alia) that he was provided with the specimen, and that he placed it in a container which he labelled. Sub-section 3 of s. 21 provides for "the completed form referred to in subsection (1)" being sent to the Bureau together with the relevant container. The defendant was tried in the District Court on a complaint that he had driven a motor vehicle on a certain occasion when there was present in his urine an unlawful concentration of alcohol contrary to s. 49, sub-s. 3, of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. At the trial the complainant adduced in evidence a certificate of the Bureau stating that the concentration of alcohol in the relevant specimen exceeded the permitted level. It was established that the medical practitioner who had furnished the prescribed form pursuant to s. 21 of the Act of 1978 had completed and signed duplicate forms when one lay exactly underneath the other and that the forms...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DPP (O'Reilly) v Barnes
...content. The following passage from the dissenting judgment of O'Higgins C.J. in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kemmy [1980] I.R. 160 at p. 164 illustrates the first of these principles where he says: "Where a statute provides for a particular form of proof or evidence in co......
-
Frank Ward v DPP and Judge Connellan
...(P) v DPP 1999 2 IR 25 KNOWLES v MALONE & HUSSEY & DPP UNREP MCKECHNIE 6.4.2001 2001/13/3778 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 1967 S4A DPP v KEMMY 1980 IR 160 CONSTITUTION ART 38.1 D v DPP 1994 2 IR 465 KELLY v DPP 1996 2 IR 596 1997 1 ILRM 6 F (B) v DPP 2001 1 IR 656 BARKER v WINGO 1972 407 US ......
-
DPP v Avadenei
...of his judgment, Noonan J. conducted an extensive review of relevant case law including The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Kemmy [1980] I.R. 160; The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Collins [1981] I.L.R.M. 447; The Director of Public Prosecutions v. O'Neill (Unreported, Supreme Cou......
-
Director of Public Prosecutions v Avadenei
...begin with two statements of general principle. The first is from a relatively early authority, Director of Public Prosecutions v Kemmy [1980] I.R. 160. This is a passage from the judgment of O'Higgins C.J. at p. 164, which, although the Chief Justice dissented as to the result in the case......