D.P.P. v. Daly [2001] IEHC 228 (20 December 2001)

It is not necessary for the prosecution in a s.49(4) Road Traffic Act, 1961-1995 case to prove that the breath testing apparatus is approved by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety; statutory presumptions and evidence provided are sufficient.

Citation: [2001] IEHC 228
Parties: Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Gareth Vance); Accused: Adrian Daly
Jurisdiction: Ireland
Judgment Date: 20 December 2001
Procedural Posture: Consultative Case Stated From District Court to High Court / Judgment
Outcome: Question answered in the negative; prosecution does not need to prove approval of apparatus by Medical Bureau.
Legal Topics: Evidential Breath Testing, Statutory Presumptions, Approval of Apparatus, Burden of Proof

Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Evidential Breath Testing Statutory Presumptions Approval of Apparatus Burden of Proof

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Gareth Vance)

Prosecutor

Adrian Daly

Accused

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated From District Court to High Court / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Is it necessary for the prosecution in a s.49(4) Road Traffic Act, 1961-1995 case to prove that the breath testing apparatus is approved by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety?
2 Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove that the apparatus has been approved by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Question answered in the negative; prosecution does not need to prove approval of apparatus by Medical Bureau.

Orders

The question posed is answered 'no'.