O'Friel v. D.P.P. [1999] IESC 65 (30th July, 1999)

The Supreme Court found the case stated insufficient as it did not clearly set out the facts and inferences on which the District Judge based the conviction, and thus remitted the case for amendment.

Citation: [1999] IESC 65
Parties: Accused/appellant: James O'Friel; Prosecutors/respondents: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Procedural Posture: Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Supreme Court Ruling on Case Stated From District Court
Outcome: Case remitted to District Judge for amendment of case stated
Legal Topics: Drink Driving, Interpretation of 'driving' Under Road Traffic Act, Case Stated Procedure

Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Drink Driving Interpretation of 'driving' Under Road Traffic Act Case Stated Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2

Parties

James O'Friel

Accused/appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutors/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / Supreme Court Ruling on Case Stated From District Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether the defendant, while asleep in his motor vehicle with the engine running, was 'driving' within the meaning of Section 49(3) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 as inserted by Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found the case stated insufficient as it did not clearly set out the facts and inferences on which the District Judge based the conviction, and thus remitted the case for amendment.

Court Disposition

Case remitted to District Judge for amendment of case stated

Orders

Remit the case stated to the District Judge pursuant to Section 7 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1857 for amendment to set out the facts and inferences supporting the conviction