Duffy v Lovegrove

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
Judgment Date01 January 1956
Date01 January 1956

Duffy v. Lovegrove
GARDA PATRICK DUFFY
Complainant
and
FREDERICK A. LOVEGROVE
Defendant.

Criminal law - Road Traffic Act, 1933 - Offences under Part IV not involving collision - Notice of intention to prosecute - Sufficiency - Place at which offences alleged to have been committed described as "Stillorgan Road, Dublin" - "Stillorgan Road, Dublin" found to have a minimum length of one mile and a quarter - Road Traffic Act, 1933 (No. 11 of 1933), s. 55,sub-s. 2 (b).

Case Stated pursuant to the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857, by Mr. John Farrell, one of the District Justices for District No. 31 (Dublin Metropolitan District) for the opinion of the High Court.

The Case Stated was as follows:

"This is a Case Stated for the opinion of the High Court pursuant to the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 (20 and 21 Vict., c. 43), by me, John Farrell, a Justice of the Metropolitan District Court sitting at Court No. 2, Morgan Place, in the City of Dublin, on the application in writing of the above-named Garda Patrick Duffy, who is dissatisfied with my determination hereinafter set forth as being erroneous in point of law.

1. At the District Court held at Morgan Place, in the City of Dublin, on the 13th November, 1953, the complainant who is a member of the Garda Siochana charged the defendant who is a manufacturer that he did on the 21st May, 1953, at Stillorgan Road, Donnybrook, a public place within the Dublin Metropolitan District, drive a vehicle, to wit a motor car, no. Z.J. 1796, (1) at a speed, (2) in a manner which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature and condition and use of the said place and the amount of traffic which then actually was or might reasonably be expected to be in such place) was dangerous to the public contrary to s. 51 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933. The summons by which the defendant was charged is annexed to this Case.

2. The facts as proved or admitted were as follows:—

The defendant was not involved in any accident or collision, nor was there any accident or collision, on the said 21st May, 1953, at Stillorgan Road, Donnybrook. Acting on instructions the complainant interviewed the defendant at his business premises, no. 66 Middle Abbey Street, in the City of Dublin, on the 22nd May, 1953, and informed the defendant that he was enquiring into allegations made by several people at Donnybrook Garda Station concerning the driving of the said motor car on Stillorgan Road, Donnybrook, on the previous night. The defendant said to the complainant:—"That is strange; I was driving that car home to Foxrock on the Stillorgan Road last night."The complainant then cautioned the defendant and the defendant made and signed a statement in writing stating that he was the owner of the said car and drove it on Stillorgan Road, from the City to Foxrock, at approximately 10 p.m. on the night in question. He also stated that while there was a lot of traffic on the road at the time he was driving the car with due consideration for other road users and was not driving it fast and he stated that the car could be seen by the complainant at...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • DPP v Colfer
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 9 Febrero 1998
    ...674 DPP V WINSTON UNREP O'HANLON 25.5.1992 1992/6/1935 DUGGAN, STATE V EVANS 1978 ILRT 61 FAHY, AG V BRUEN 1937 IR 166 DUFFY V LOVEGROVE 1956 IR 82 YOUNG V DAY 123 LGR 317 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(2) ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S49(6)(a) ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1994 S10 ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1995 DE BLACAM ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT