D. P. P. -v- Davenport D. P. P. -v- Davenport [2009] IEHC 506 (19 November 2009)

D. P. P. -v- Davenport D. P. P. -v- Davenport [2009] IEHC 506 (19 November 2009)

Section 12 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended) does not require that the same Garda member who detains the accused must also administer the breath test; a purposive interpretation avoids an absurd result and minor procedural flaws not causing prejudice do not invalidate the prosecution.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 506
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Sergeant Michael Murphy); Accused: Gerard Davenport
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated / High Court Consultative Opinion on District Court Question
Outcome
Procedure adopted was in accordance with the law; question answered in the affirmative.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Statutory Procedure, Roadside Breath Testing, Compliance With Road Traffic Act, Procedural Irregularities
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Interpretation of Statutory Procedure Roadside Breath Testing Compliance With Road Traffic Act Procedural Irregularities

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Sergeant Michael Murphy)

Prosecutor

Gerard Davenport

Accused

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated / High Court Consultative Opinion on District Court Question

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Section 12 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended) requires the same Garda member to both detain and administer the roadside breath test
  2. 2 Whether a procedural flaw in the administration of the breath test invalidates the prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

Section 12 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended) does not require that the same Garda member who detains the accused must also administer the breath test; a purposive interpretation avoids an absurd result and minor procedural flaws not causing prejudice do not invalidate the prosecution.

Court Disposition

Procedure adopted was in accordance with the law; question answered in the affirmative.

Orders

  • The procedure adopted by Sergeant Murphy and Garda Healy was in accordance with Section 12 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (as amended).