McCarrick v Leavy

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1965
• Date: 01 January 1965
• Court: Supreme Court

(S.C.)

McCarrick

and

Leavy

Road accident - Statement to Guard made without caution - When caution should be administered - Whether Guard had made up his mind to prosecute - Judges' Rules - Effect of failure to comply with Judges' Rules - Whether statement voluntary - Case stated - Judges' Rules, r. 2 - Discretion of District Justice - Road Traffic Act, 1933, ss. 51, 173.

M., a police officer, while making enquiries in relation to a hit-and-run accident, interviewed the defendant before he charged him and, in the course of the interview, he told him that he was enquiring into the accident and asked the defendant if he were the owner of the car involved, and the defendant replied in the affirmative. In the District Court, at the trial of the defendant for offences under the Road Traffic Act, 1933, ss. 51 and 173, the Guard was asked by the prosecution if he had asked the defendant: —"Who was driving the car at the time of the accident?" Counsel for the defendant objected to the question on the ground that it was the duty of the Guard to caution the defendant. The Guard was then examined as to whether at that time he had made up his mind to prosecute the defendant. He said he had not so made up his mind as he did not know at the time who was driving the motor car, but the District Justice, in view of the equivocal answer given by the Guard, considered that he had in fact made up his mind to charge the defendant and accordingly he ruled that any evidence given in reply to the question was inadmissible on the ground that it was taken in contravention of the Judges' Rules and he accordingly dismissed the prosecution. Held by the Supreme Court ( Ó Dálaigh C.J., Kingsmill Moore and Walsh JJ.): 1, that if the District Justice were not satisfied, as he did not appear to have been that the complainant had not made up his mind to...