D.P.P. v. Finn [2003] IESC 11 (19 February 2003)

D.P.P. v. Finn [2003] IESC 11 (19 February 2003)

In the absence of objective evidence justifying the prescribed minimum period of detention for observation prior to requiring a breath specimen, the detention was not lawful at the time the requirement was made, and any evidence obtained thereafter is inadmissible.

Citation
[2003] IESC 11
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Defendant/appellant: Michael Finn
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
19 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Case Stated (criminal) / Supreme Court Appeal From Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; questions answered in favour of the defendant
Legal Topics
Lawfulness of Detention, Admissibility of Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Constitutional Law Lawfulness of Detention Admissibility of Evidence Procedural Fairness 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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

Michael Finn

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (criminal) / Supreme Court Appeal From Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prescribed minimum period of detention for observation prior to requiring a breath specimen is lawful absent objective justification
  2. 2 Whether evidence obtained following such detention is admissible if the detention is unlawful

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of objective evidence justifying the prescribed minimum period of detention for observation prior to requiring a breath specimen, the detention was not lawful at the time the requirement was made, and any evidence obtained thereafter is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; questions answered in favour of the defendant

Orders

  • First question (lawfulness of detention) answered in the negative
  • Second question (admissibility of evidence) answered in the affirmative