D.P.P. v. Elliot [1997] IEHC 24; [1997] 2 ILRM 156 (6th February, 1997)

D.P.P. v. Elliot [1997] IEHC 24; [1997] 2 ILRM 156 (6th February, 1997)

There is no legal requirement for a Garda to caution or inform a hospitalised person, not under arrest, that he remains at liberty before making a statutory request for a specimen under Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 24
Parties
Accused: The Accused; Law Enforcement: Garda Moran; Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated / High Court Opinion
Outcome
Question answered in the negative
Legal Topics
Self Incrimination, Road Traffic Offences, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Self Incrimination Road Traffic Offences Procedural Fairness

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Accused

Accused

Garda Moran

Law Enforcement

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated / High Court Opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Garda must inform a hospitalised person, not under arrest, that he is at liberty before requiring a blood or urine specimen under Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994

Ratio Decidendi

There is no legal requirement for a Garda to caution or inform a hospitalised person, not under arrest, that he remains at liberty before making a statutory request for a specimen under Section 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994.

Court Disposition

Question answered in the negative

Orders

  • No requirement to caution or inform the accused of liberty before Section 15 request