DPP v Ennis [2011] IESC 46 (06 December 2011)

DPP v Ennis [2011] IESC 46 (06 December 2011)

A lawful arrest for drink driving is valid if the accused is informed in substance of the reason for arrest, even if the statute or section is not expressly invoked; evidential burden regarding compliance with statutory regulations can be discharged by direct evidence, cross-examination, and statutory presumptions; rebuttal of the statutory presumption under s.21 removes the evidential effect of the s.17 statement for the facts to which rebuttal applies.

Citation
[2011] IESC 46
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Elaine Rowan); Accused: Frank Ennis
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Case Stated Appeal / Supreme Court Determination of Legal Questions
Outcome
Questions answered in the negative; case remitted to trial judge for consideration in accordance with findings.
Legal Topics
Arrest Procedure, Evidential Breath Specimen, Statutory Presumptions, Compliance With Statutory Regulations
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Arrest Procedure Evidential Breath Specimen Statutory Presumptions Compliance With Statutory Regulations

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Elaine Rowan)

Prosecutor

Frank Ennis

Accused

Procedural Posture

Case Stated Appeal / Supreme Court Determination of Legal Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an arrest for drink driving is lawful if the arresting officer does not expressly invoke the statute or section at the time of arrest
  2. 2 Whether evidential burden on the accused regarding compliance with Article 5 of the 1999 Regulations can be discharged by direct evidence, cross-examination, and statutory presumptions
  3. 3 Effect of rebutting the statutory presumption under s.21 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 on the evidential value of the s.17 statement

Ratio Decidendi

A lawful arrest for drink driving is valid if the accused is informed in substance of the reason for arrest, even if the statute or section is not expressly invoked; evidential burden regarding compliance with statutory regulations can be discharged by direct evidence, cross-examination, and statutory presumptions; rebuttal of the statutory presumption under s.21 removes the evidential effect of the s.17 statement for the facts to which rebuttal applies.

Court Disposition

Questions answered in the negative; case remitted to trial judge for consideration in accordance with findings.

Orders

  • Remit case to learned trial judge for consideration in accordance with Supreme Court findings.