DPP v Moira Doyle

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 09 October 1996
• Date: 09 October 1996
• Docket Number: [1995 No. 959 SS]
• Court: High Court

High Court

[1995 No. 959 SS]

The Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doyle

In the matter of the Courts Acts, 1924 to 1981, and in the matter of s. 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act

1961.

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Complainant

and

Moira Doyle

Defendant

Cases mentioned in this report:—

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Hand [1994] 1 I.R. 577.

Director of Public Prosecutions v. McGarrigle (Unreported, Supreme Court, 22nd June, 1987).

Criminal law - Road traffic - "Refusing or failing to comply" with requirement to give specimen of blood or urine - Whether "refusal" and "failure" constituting two separate offences - Whether "refusal" to comply constitutes a "failure" - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978 (No. 19), s. 13 - Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1984 (No. 16), s. 5.

Consultative case stated.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are set out in the judgment of Geoghegan J., infra.

The case stated, dated the 30th June, 1993, was heard by the High Court (Geoghegan J.) on the 11th July, 1996.

By s. 13, sub-s. 1 (b) of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, as amended by s. 5 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1984, a garda may require a person arrested under certain statutory provisions and brought to a garda station to permit the taking of a specimen of blood or provide a specimen of urine.

By s. 13, sub-s. 2 a person who "refuses or fails" to comply with such a requirement, or the requirement of a medical practitioner in relation to the taking or provision of the specimen, "shall be guilty of an offence".

The defendant refused to comply with a requirement under s. 13, sub-section 1. She was charged with "failure" to comply with the requirement.

Counsel for the defendant submitted that though the evidence might have established a "refusal", it did not establish a "failure". He submitted that two offences had been created by the section, therefore different considerations applied to them and evidence of a refusal would have involved a substantially different cross-examination.

Counsel for the complainant submitted that the section created one offence only, and that the evidence of refusal was sufficient to enable the defendant to be convicted as charged.

Held by Geoghegan J., in answering a consultative case stated, 1, that s. 13 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978, did not create more than one offence by the words "refuses or fails". Evidence of refusal and non-compliance would be sufficient to establish failure.

2. That the words "refuse or fail" were used to avoid any possible loopholes and strained interpretations.

3. That the purpose of s. 13, sub-s. 1 (b) as amended was to ensure that either a blood or urine sample would be provided in such a form that it was testable.

4. That the defendant had refused to permit any sample to be taken, which in plain English constituted not just a refusal but a failure.

5. That there was no reason to depart from the plain English meaning regarding the purpose of the section.

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Hand [1994] 1 I.R. 577 and Director of Public Prosecutions v. McGarrigle (Unreported, Supreme Court, 22nd June, 1987) considered.

6. That the offence consisted of the non-compliance with the requirement which could take the form of an express refusal in which case there was both a refusal and a failure, or...