DPP v O'Neill
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice O'Regan |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 463 |
| Date | 31 July 2018 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2017 No. 883 SS] [2018 No. 46 SS] [2018 No. 47 SS] [2018 No. 283 SS] [2018 No. 611 SS] |
[2018] IEHC 463
THE HIGH COURT
O'Regan J.
[2017 No. 883 SS]
[2018 No. 46 SS]
[2018 No. 47 SS]
[2018 No. 283 SS]
[2018 No. 611 SS]
IN THE MATTER OF S. 2 OF THE SUMMARY JURISDICTION ACT 1857 AS EXTENDED BY S. 51 OF THE COURTS (SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS) 1961
Drink driving offences – Case stated – DPP v O'Neill & Bohannon (ex tempore judgment of Moriarty J, 1st February 2016) – Prosecution asking the High Court not to follow DPP v O'Neill & Bohannon – Whether the ratio decidendi of the decision remained unclear
Facts: Each of the accused, Mr O'Neill, Mr Brady, Mr Farrell, Mr Rothwell and Mr Cooling, was brought before the District Court charged pursuant to s. 4 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 with a drink driving offence and in each case the District Judge dismissed the charge against the accused on the basis of an application of the High Court judgment in DPP v O'Neill & Bohannon (ex tempore judgment of Moriarty J, 1st February 2016). The matter came before Moriarty J in Bohannon on the basis of a Consultative Case Stated where two questions were posed following an argument raised by Mr Bohannon asserting processing of an arrested person by a member in charge of a Garda Station under the Treatment of Persons in Custody Regulations 1986 is a separate and discrete procedure and should be unaffected by any other procedure, in that instance the 20-minute observation period of the accused prior to introducing him to the Intoxilyzer machine. Moriarty J answered in the affirmative the question to the effect that the two procedures should be discrete procedures unaffected each by the other. He also held that the District Judge was correct on the facts of the case as agreed by dismissing the prosecution. In the instant cases, the DPP sought a different outcome to that which occurred in Bohannon, namely, that the process of arresting a person by a member in charge and that of the 20-minute observation period for the Intoxilyzer test might lawfully overlap. In asking the High Court not to follow the Bohannon judgment the DPP argued that: (i) the ratio decidendi of the decision remained unclear; (ii) the decision conflicted with other High Court authorities; (iii) the interchangeability of the roles of An Garda Siochána in a rural garda station did not arise on the facts found by the District Court in its case stated to the High Court; (iv) the decision did not give any consideration to relevant case law in the area. The accused argued that: (i) the circumstances and facts involved in the five cases before the court were virtually identical to Bohannon, and therefore the District Judge was obliged to follow Bohannon; (ii) Moriarty J did not rephrase the questions posed of him which was as a matter of law an option available to him; (iii) the Bohannon judgment was clear in finding that there should be no overlap between the processing of an accused person and the observation period; (iv) the doctrine of stare decisis applied; (v) the role of interchangeability of An Garda Siochána was not determinative and any comments made by Moriarty J were obiter dicta only in that regard.
Held by the court that, although two questions were posed in each of the five matters before the court, by responding to the queries posed by Lindsay J in DPP v O'Neill, the answers to the questions posed in the balance of the cases would be evident.
The court held that, based upon the foregoing judgment, the answers to the questions posed by Lindsay J on the 28th July 2017 at para. 11 of the consultative case stated would be answered as follows: (a) no; (b) yes.
Judgment approved.
The issue before the court arises as a consequence of five Cases Stated from the District Court. In each matter the accused was brought before the court charged pursuant to s. 4 of the Road Traffic Act, 2010, with a drink driving offence and in each case the District Judge dismissed the charge against the accused on the basis of an application of the High Court judgment in DPP v. O'Neill & Bohannon ( ex tempore judgment of Moriarty J., 1st February 2016).
The matter came before Moriarty J. in Bohannon on the basis of a Consultative Case Stated where two questions were posed following an argument raised by Mr. Bohannon (asserting processing of an arrested person by a member in charge of a Garda Station under the Treatment of Persons in Custody Regulations 1986, is a separate and discrete procedure and should be unaffected by any other procedure; In that instance, the 20-minute observation period of the accused prior to introducing the accused to the Intoxilyzer machine). In the event, Moriarty J. delivered an oral judgment. He answered in the affirmative the question to the effect that the two procedures should be discrete procedures unaffected each by the other. He also agreed with the District Judge that the District Judge was correct on the facts of the case as agreed by dismissing the prosecution.
In the instant five matters the DPP is seeking a different outcome to that which occurred in Bohannon, namely, that the process of arresting a person by a member in charge and that of the 20-minute observation period for the Intoxilyzer test might lawfully overlap.
In asking the court not to follow the Bohannon judgment the DPP argues: -
(i) The ratio decidendi of the decision remains unclear,
(ii) The decision conflicts with other High Court authorities,
(iii) The interchangeability of the roles of An Garda Siochána in a rural garda station did not arise on the facts found by the District Court in its case stated to the High Court,
(iv) The decision did not give any consideration to relevant case law in the area.
The respondents argue: -
(i) The circumstances and facts involved in the five cases before the court are virtually identical to Bohannon, and therefore the District Judge was obliged to follow Bohannon,
(ii) Moriarty J. did not rephrase the questions posed of him which was as a matter of law an option available to him,
(iii) The Bohannon judgment is clear in finding that there should be no overlap between the processing of an accused person and the observation period,
(iv) The doctrine of stare decisis applies,
(v) The role of interchangeability of An Garda Siochána was not determinative and any comments made by Moriarty J. were obiter dicta only in this regard.
The respondents accept since the Supreme Court judgment in The People (DPP) v. J.C. [2015] IESC 50, that it is possible in the instant type case stated procedure that a prior judgment of a judge of the same court may be overruled. In J.C. the Supreme Court overruled the prior Supreme Court decision of The People (DPP) v. Kenny [1990] 2 IR 110. That having been said, the respondents referred to the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in J.C was on the basis of a 4 – 3 majority. The Supreme Court were subsequently unanimous in determining that the matter should not be remitted to the District Court for rehearing notwithstanding that the options open to the court were to affirm, reject or remit the matter to the District Court.
In Irish Trust Bank Ltd. v. Central Bank of Ireland [1976-1977] ILRM 50, Parke J. in the High Court said that the principle of stare decisis requires that a court should not depart from a decision of another court of equal jurisdiction unless it is established that the decision was based on (a) insufficient authority or (b) incorrect submissions or (c) that the judgment departed in some way from the proper standard to be adopted in judicial determination.
In the matter of in re: Worldport Ltd. [2005] IEHC 189, Clarke J. held that it was a well-established matter of judicial comity that the judge of first instance ought usually to follow the decision of another judge of the same court unless there are substantial reasons for believing that the initial judgment was wrong. Thereafter he identified a number of...
To continue reading
Request your trial