D.P.P. v. Moloney [2001] IEHC 178 (20th December, 2001)

D.P.P. v. Moloney [2001] IEHC 178 (20th December, 2001)

It is lawful to charge a person under Section 50 of the Road Traffic Acts, 1961/95 even if the arrest was made under Section 49(8), provided the facts constituting the alleged crime were known to the accused and the statutory scheme allows for conviction under either section.

Citation
[2001] IEHC 178
Parties
Appellant: Appellant (State); Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Case Stated (criminal) / High Court Review of District Court Dismissal
Outcome
District Court decision reversed; charge dismissal incorrect
Legal Topics
Arrest Powers, Charge Substitution, Drink Driving Offences, Procedural Law
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Arrest Powers Charge Substitution Drink Driving Offences Procedural Law

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant (State)

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (criminal) / High Court Review of District Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person arrested under Section 49(8) of the Road Traffic Acts, 1961/95 can be charged with an offence under Section 50 of the Acts
  2. 2 Whether the District Court was correct in dismissing the charge on the basis of the arrest section

Ratio Decidendi

It is lawful to charge a person under Section 50 of the Road Traffic Acts, 1961/95 even if the arrest was made under Section 49(8), provided the facts constituting the alleged crime were known to the accused and the statutory scheme allows for conviction under either section.

Court Disposition

District Court decision reversed; charge dismissal incorrect

Orders

  • District Judge was not correct in dismissing the charge under Section 50(2) and (6)(a) on the basis that the arrest was under Section 49(8)
  • The answer to the case stated is 'no'