DPP v Molloy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Murphy
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1994
• Neutral Citation: 1993 WJSC-HC 1868
• Docket Number: [1992 No. 1227SS],1227 S.S/1992
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1994

1993 WJSC-HC 1868

THE HIGH COURT

1227 S.S/1992

DPP v. MOLLOY

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT

1857 AS EXTENDED BY SECTION 51 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL)

PROVISIONS ACT 1961

BETWEEN

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

COMPLAINANT

AND

PETER MOLLOY

DEFENDANT

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S3

SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 S2

COURTS (SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS) ACT 1961 S51

ROAD TRAFFIC (SIGNS)(AMDT)(NO 3) REGS 1971 SI 256/1971

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S2

MONTGOMERY V LONEY 1958/59 NI 171

STANBRIDGE V HEALY 1985 ILRM 290

SNADY V MARTIN 1974 CLR 258

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT (NI) 1955 S39(1)

DUBLIN TRAFFIC & PARKING TEMPORARY RULES 1982 SI 109/1982 ART 16(1)

DUBLIN TRAFFIC & PARKING TEMPORARY RULES 1982 SI 109/1982 ART 16(2)

Synopsis:

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Public place"

Offence - Location - Proof - City - Pedestrian area - Vehicle traffic excluded at specified periods - Motor-cyclist charged with offence committed in a public place - Offence committed during such period - (1992/1227 SS - Murphy J. - 3/3/93)

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Molloy|

ROAD TRAFFIC

Offence

Location - Public place - Proof - City - Pedestrian area - Vehicle traffic excluded at specified periods - Motor-cyclist charged with offence - Offence committed during such period - Road Traffic Act, 1961, s. 3 - (1992/1227 SS - Murphy J. - 3/3/93)

|Director of Public Prosecutions v. Molloy|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Murphydelivered the 3rd day of March 1993.

2 The case stated by District Justice Michael Pattwell on the 16th of December 1992 raises the question whether he was correct in law in determining that Grafton Street in the City of Dublin was on the 7th day of June 1991 or at any material time on that date a "public place" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1961.

3 The question arises in this way. The Defendant, Peter Molloy, was prosecuted on three charges under the Road Traffic Acts or various regulations made thereunder. It is an ingredient of each of the charges that it occurred in a "public place". The particular place where the incidents were alleged to have occurred was Grafton Street in the City of Dublin and the time was 10.35 p.m.. In the hearing of the charges before the learned District Justice, Garda Michael Whelan gave evidence that he observed the Defendant riding a motorcycle along Grafton Street, coming from the direction ofSt. Stephen's Green in the direction of Nassau Street and that he stopped the bicycle outside Brown Thomas Department Store. Whilst no accident occurred, the Garda gave evidence that the street was crowded with pedestrians and that the Defendant had swerved in and out of them. The Garda expressed the opinion that the Defendant had driven the motorcycle in a careless fashion. Apparently it was the Garda who gave evidence that Grafton Street is closed to traffic generally and is open to traffic only on weekday mornings between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 a.m. to enable shops to be supplied and so forth. It follows that at the time of the incident the road was closed to traffic generally. In fact the "pedestrianisation" of streets in Dublin is regulated by Statutory Instrument 109 of 1982, part IV which, so far as material, provides as follows:-

4 2 "16 (1) A person shall not with a vehicle enter a street or portion of a street to which this rule applies, or park a vehicle in such a street or portion of a street...