Murphy v DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1989 |
| Date | 01 January 1989 |
Evidence - Preservation - Charges related to stolen car -Judicial review - Duty of gardaí to preserve evidence material to guilt or innocence - Garda disposal of vehicle - Whether prejudice arising - Whether injunction to restrain prosecution of said charges be granted.
The applicant was charged with a number of offences arising out of an incident in April, 1987, in which it was alleged that the applicant had been driving a stolen car which was wrecked in the incident. The applicant's legal advisors informed the Gardaí on 14 May that they wished to conduct fingerprint tests upon the wrecked car which was being stored in Harcourt Terrace Garda Station. The Gardaí did not carry out any fingerprint check on their own behalf and intended to rely solely upon visual identification. On 11 June when the applicant's solicitor phoned the Gardaí requesting access to the car for the purpose of forensic inspection, he was informed by the Gardaí that the car had been given to an insurance company interested in its salvage value. The applicant sought an injunction by way of an application for judicial review to restrain the D.P.P. from proceeding with certain charges on the grounds inter alia that the disposal of the car by the Gardaí had prejudiced him in the preparation of his defence by the destruction of evidence which might have assisted him in rebutting the visual identification of the Gardaí. The respondent submitted that the applicant had been afforded an opportunity to inspect the vehicle and had failed to act within a reasonable time. Furthermore that no purpose could be served by a forensic examination long after the events and that there was no requirement in law for the prosecution to forensically examine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Braddish v DPP
...Applicant 23 Reliance is placed essentially on the decision of the High Court in the case of Murphy-v-Director of Public Prosecutions [1989] I.L.R.M. 71. That case concerned an allegation of an unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and dangerous driving. The offence was alleged to have occurre......
-
McFarlane v DPP
......Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514 in a passage which was approved of in this court in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Byrne [1994] 2 I.R. 236 , having previously been endorsed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Bell v. D.P.P. [1985] A.C. 937 and by Murphy J. in The State (O'Connell) v. Fawsitt [1986] I.R. 362 . . . 95 This judgment was delivered subsequent to a decision of the High Court (Geoghegan J.) in P.P. v. DPP [2000] 1 I.R.403 , a case in which Geoghegan J. found (at p.410) that a garda investigation had been ......
-
Bowes v DPP
...that he "very much doubts" if an examination of the motorcycle would have thrown light on these matters. The law 20 In Murphy v. DPP [1989] ILRM 71 Lynch J. said:- "The authorities establish that evidence relevant to guilt or innocence must so far as is necessary and practicable be kept un......
-
O'Brien v DPP
...O'Brien v DPP Between/ Garrett O'Brien Applicant/Respondent and The Director of Public Prosecutions Respondent/Appellant MURPHY v DPP 1989 ILRM 71 BOWES & MCGRATH v DPP 2003 2 IR 25 SAVAGE v DPP UNREP SUPREME 3.7.2008 2008 IESC 39 LUDLOW v DPP UNREP SUPREME 31.7.2008 2008 IESC 54 PERRY v ......
-
Summary v. Indictable: choices in the disposal of criminal cases
...themselves to sentences _____________________________________________________ 18See for example the following cases: Murphy v. DPP [1989] I.L.R.M. 71; Dunne v. DPP [2002] 2 I.L.R.M. 241 (S.C.); Braddish v. DPP [2001] 3 I.R. 127 (S.C.); Bowes and McGrath v. DPP, Supreme Court, unreported, 6 ......