DPP v Maddock

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Blayney J.
• Judgment Date: 03 May 1993
• Neutral Citation: 2003 WJSC-CCA 3878
• Docket Number: 65/92
• Court: Court of Criminal Appeal
• Date: 03 May 1993

2003 WJSC-CCA 3878

THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Blayney J.

Lynch J.

Johnson J.

65/92

DPP v. MADDOCK

THE PEOPLE AT THE SUIT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROSECUTIONS

v.

PHILIP MADDOCK

Applicant

Citations:

PEOPLE V REGAN 1975 IR 367

1 Judgment of the Court (ex tempore) delivered on the 3rd day of May 1993 by Blayney J.

2 In this application for leave to appeal one sole ground is relied upon and that is that the trial judge erred in law in the exercise of his discretion in admitting the evidence of the consumption of alcohol by the applicant in the circumstances whereby the probative value of such evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

3 The evidence in question was that the applicant between approximately a quarter of an hour after midday and the time of the accident which was about 9.30 in the evening had consumed approximately 11 1/2 pints or 12 pints of Guinness.The question was whether evidence of the consumption of that amount of liquor should be permitted where the probative value of the evidence might be outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

4 The Court is firmly of the view that the learned trial judge was correct in admitting the evidence. He was quite satisfied that the probative value far outweighed its prejudicial effect. The case cited by Mr. White in his as usual very careful and thorough submission The People v.Regan (1935) I.R. set out certain criteria but the principal criteria certainly as stated by Mr. Justice Griffin in that case was what is a significant quantity? In that case the quantity involved was 7 pints of beer. Here the quantity is 11 1/ 2 or 12 pints. There was no doubt whatsoever that that was a very significant quantity. Mr. White referred to the fact that what the Court has to consider also is the tolerance of the particular person in question to alcohol and hisphysicalcapacity but where the amount of alcohol is as great as 11 1/2 pints The Court thinks it is clear that a jury with any experience of alcohol is entitled to conclude that that quantity of alcohol is bound to affect anybody irrespective of what their tolerance is.

5 Mr. Grogan in reply to Mr. White's submissions submitted, and it seems to the Court perfectly correctly, that the jury, in considering the question of whether or not the accused was guilty of manslaughter, would have had to take into account whether or not he was reckless in driving in the particular circumstances. One of the...