Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Sean Kenny [2006] IEHC 330 (13 October 2006)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Sean Kenny [2006] IEHC 330 (13 October 2006)

Section 49(6)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 confers a discretion on the court to convict under Section 50(4) when a charge is brought under Section 49(4), but the District Judge erred in law by dismissing the case solely because the prosecution was brought under Section 49(4) and not exercising the discretion as required.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 330
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Sean Kenny
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 October 2006
Procedural Posture
Case Stated (appeal on Point of Law) / High Court Judgment on Case Stated From District Court
Outcome
Case stated answered in the negative; matter remitted to District Judge for further consideration in accordance with High Court's opinion.
Legal Topics
Drink Driving, Alternative Verdicts, Statutory Interpretation, Discretion of Trial Judge
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Drink Driving Alternative Verdicts Statutory Interpretation Discretion of Trial Judge

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Sean Kenny

Accused

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (appeal on Point of Law) / High Court Judgment on Case Stated From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a District Judge has discretion not to convict under Section 50(4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, when prosecution is brought solely under Section 49(4)
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'may' in Section 49(6)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961

Ratio Decidendi

Section 49(6)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 confers a discretion on the court to convict under Section 50(4) when a charge is brought under Section 49(4), but the District Judge erred in law by dismissing the case solely because the prosecution was brought under Section 49(4) and not exercising the discretion as required.

Court Disposition

Case stated answered in the negative; matter remitted to District Judge for further consideration in accordance with High Court's opinion.

Orders

  • Remit matter to District Judge to hear further submissions, exercise discretion under Section 49(6)(b), and pronounce judgment.