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 requirement for a Garda to caution or 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.

Citation
[1997] 2 ILRM 156
Parties
Accused: The Accused; Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Witness: Garda Moran
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated / High Court Opinion
Outcome
Question answered in the Case Stated: No requirement to caution or inform accused of liberty before Section 15 request.
Legal Topics
Self Incrimination, Procedural Fairness, Blood and Urine Specimen Requirements, Arrest and Liberty
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Constitutional Law Self Incrimination Procedural Fairness Blood and Urine Specimen Requirements Arrest and Liberty

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Accused

Accused

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Garda Moran

Witness

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 requirement for a Garda to caution or 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.

Court Disposition

Question answered in the Case Stated: No requirement to caution or inform accused of liberty before Section 15 request.