D.P.P. v. Mangan [2001] IESC 111 (6 April 2001)

D.P.P. v. Mangan [2001] IESC 111 (6 April 2001)

The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court judge was entitled to infer the requirement was made under s.13(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, and that the obligation to permit the taking of a blood specimen revived after the appellant's bona fide failed attempt to provide urine. Refusal to comply with the revived requirement constituted an offence under s.13(3).

Citation
[2001] IESC 111
Parties
Prosecutor/respondent: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused/appellant: Simon Mangan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Case Stated (criminal Appeal) / Supreme Court Judgment on Consultative Case Stated From Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; questions in Case Stated answered in favour of the prosecution.
Legal Topics
Refusal to Provide Specimen, Interpretation of Statutory Requirements, Self Incrimination, Procedural Fairness in Criminal Prosecutions
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Refusal to Provide Specimen Interpretation of Statutory Requirements Self Incrimination Procedural Fairness in Criminal Prosecutions

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor/respondent

Simon Mangan

Accused/appellant

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (criminal Appeal) / Supreme Court Judgment on Consultative Case Stated From Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to specify 'Road Traffic Act, 1994' when making a requirement under s.13(1)(b) is fatal to prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the obligation to provide a blood specimen revives after bona fide failed attempt to provide urine specimen
  3. 3 Whether refusal to comply with revived requirement constitutes an offence under s.13(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court judge was entitled to infer the requirement was made under s.13(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, and that the obligation to permit the taking of a blood specimen revived after the appellant's bona fide failed attempt to provide urine. Refusal to comply with the revived requirement constituted an offence under s.13(3).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; questions in Case Stated answered in favour of the prosecution.

Orders

  • First question answered 'yes': the judge was entitled to infer the requirement was made under the 1994 Act.
  • Second question answered 'yes': the requirement at 1.48 a.m. was a repetition or revival of the earlier lawful requirement.