Rogers v DPP
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | O'Hanlon J. |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 1992 |
| Neutral Citation | 1992 WJSC-HC 2755 |
| Docket Number | J.R. No. 265/1991 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 02 March 1992 |
1992 WJSC-HC 2755
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
AND
Citations:
MURPHY V DPP 1989 ILRM 71
Synopsis:
DELAY
Defendant
Vehicle - Inspection - Permission - Request - Fingerprint examination - Request not made promptly - (1991/265 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 2/3/92)
|Rogers v. Director of Public Prosecutions|
EVIDENCE
Preservation
Prosecution - Duty - Motor vehicle - Examination - Fingerprints - Vehicle returned to owner - Accused unable to inspect vehicle for fingerprints - Delay of accused - (1991/265 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 2/3/92)
|Rogers v. Director of Public Prosecutions|
NATURAL JUSTICE
Fair procedures
Motor vehicle - Examination - Opportunity - Deprivation - Finger prints - Delay of accused - (1991/265 JR - O'Hanlon J. - 2/3/92)
|Rogers v. Director of Public Prosecutions|
Judgment of O'Hanlon J. delivered the 2nd day of March, 1992
The Applicant seeks to prohibit the State from proceeding further with criminal charges brought against him arising out of events which occurred on the 11th August, 1991 when Gardai in a patrol car gave chase to a car which they considered was being driven in an erratic and dangerous manner. In the course of that pursuit it is alleged that the car in question was driven deliberately into collision with the patrol car.
In the course of the pursuit, one of the Gardai in the pursuing car claims that the patrol car drove up alongside the car which was being pursued and that he recognised the Applicant, John Rogers, as the driver of the car. Ultimately the car was abandoned, and in the course of a chase which followed the Applicant was apprehended, and was then brought to Raheny Garda Station and charged with a number of offences including the unlawful taking of the car in question; malicious damage to other cars; and a number of driving offences based on the allegation that he was the driver of the car which was involved in those events. Further charges were added on subsequent dates.
On the 9th September, 1991, the District Justice dealing with the charges refused jurisdiction and directed that a Book of Evidence should be prepared. This was done, and was served on the Applicant on the 21st October, 1991. An application was then made on behalf of the Applicant to have evidence taken on deposition and the matter was adjourned to enable this to take place.
On or about the 25th October, 1991, the Applicant's solicitor wrote to the Gardai to enquire if the vehicle which was being driven when the patrol car gave chase to it on the 11th August, 1991, was available for inspection by the Applicant's engineer, for a forensic examination to be carried out. The reply given was, in summary, "the vehicle is not available for inspection by your client's engineer as it was returned to the owner shortly after incident."
This application for judicial review was then initiated, based on the following grounds:
• - It would have been the Applicant's intention to have the car examined for fingerprints, as the Applicant denies that he was the driver of the car
• - The prosecution seek to rely upon evidence of visual identification only, and they did not carry out any forensic examination as to who was driving the car
• - As the car has been returned to the owner, it is no longer possible to determine by forensic examination as to who was driving the car
• - The disposal of the car has prevented the Applicant from adducing possible scientific evidence in his defence to refute the evidence of visual identification
• - It is incumbent on the Garda Siochana to retain in their possession articles of evidence until the conclusion of the case
• - The action of the Garda Siochana in disposing of the vehicle is a breach of fair procedures.
The Applicant relies, in particular, on a decision of Mr. Justice Lynch in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrath v DPP
...138 JR/2000 MCGRATH v. DPP BETWEEN DEIRDRE MCGRATH APPLICANT AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS RESPONDENT Citations: ROGERS V DPP 1992 ILRM 695 DUTTON V DPP UNREP FLOOD 9.7.1979 1998/5/1475 MURPHY V DPP 1989 ILRM 71 CHRISTIE V LEACHINSKY 1947 AC 573 BRADDISH V DPP UNREP O CAOIMH 21......
-
Molloy v DPP
...ART 38.1 HEALY, STATE v DONOGHUE 1976 IR 325 DYLAN v O'BRIEN & DAVIES 1887 20 LR 300 MURPHY v DPP 1989 ILRM 71 RODGERS v DPP 1992 ILRM 695 BRADDISH v DPP 2001 3 IR 127 2002 1 ILRM 151 DUNNE v DPP 2002 2 ILRM 241 2002 2 IR 305 BOWES & MCGRATH v DPP 2003 2 IR 25 MCKEOWN v DPP UNREP SUPR......
-
Braddish v DPP
...trial being aborted by direction of the trial Judge. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Rogers-v-Director of Public Prosecutions [1992] I.L.R.M. 695 in a case bearing some similarity to the Murphy case. O’Hanlon J. stated inter aliaat page 698 of the report: 35 “A lengthy period was al......
-
McKeown v Judge of the Dublin Circuit Court
...Citations: MURPHY V DPP 1989 ILRM 71 DILLON V O'BRIEN & DAVIES 1887 20 LR 300 HEALY, STATE V DONOGHUE 1976 IR 300 ROGERS V DPP 1992 ILRM 695 BRADDISH V DPP 2001 3 IR 127 2002 1 ILRM 151 DUNNE V DPP 2002 2 ILRM 241 BOWES V DPP UNREP SUPREME 6.2.2003 MCGRATH V DPP UNREP MURPHY 20.12.2001 ......