D.P.P. v. Duffy [1999] IEHC 173; [2000] 1 IR 393 (4th June, 1999)

D.P.P. v. Duffy [1999] IEHC 173; [2000] 1 IR 393 (4th June, 1999)

Where a Garda gives uncontested evidence that he formed the opinion that the accused had consumed intoxicating liquor before requiring a breath specimen under Section 12(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, and the accused is represented and does not challenge the evidence or the bona fides of the opinion, there is no requirement for the prosecution to adduce further evidence of the reasonableness or genuineness of the opinion.

Citation
[2000] 1 IR 393
Parties
Prosecutor: The People (Prosecutor); Accused: Unnamed Accused
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated / High Court Determination of Legal Question From District Court
Outcome
Question of law answered in favour of the prosecution.
Legal Topics
Drunk Driving, Evidentiary Requirements, Police Powers, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Drunk Driving Evidentiary Requirements Police Powers Statutory Interpretation

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The People (Prosecutor)

Prosecutor

Unnamed Accused

Accused

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated / High Court Determination of Legal Question From District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Garda must provide evidence of the reasonableness and genuineness of their opinion that a person has consumed intoxicating liquor before requiring a breath specimen under Section 12(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a Garda gives uncontested evidence that he formed the opinion that the accused had consumed intoxicating liquor before requiring a breath specimen under Section 12(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, and the accused is represented and does not challenge the evidence or the bona fides of the opinion, there is no requirement for the prosecution to adduce further evidence of the reasonableness or genuineness of the opinion.

Court Disposition

Question of law answered in favour of the prosecution.

Orders

  • It is sufficient for a Garda to state in evidence that he formed the opinion that the person had consumed intoxicating liquor before requiring a breath specimen, without the prosecution having to show the reasonableness and genuineness of the opinion, unless challenged.