The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- O'Neill & ors [2018] IEHC 463 (03 August 2018)

The Director of Public Prosecutions -v- O'Neill & ors [2018] IEHC 463 (03 August 2018)

There is no unlawfulness in overlap between the Intoxilyzer observation period and the processing of the accused by the member in charge; breach of procedural regulations must be accompanied by evidence of prejudice to exclude evidence; Moriarty J.'s judgment in Bohannon was incorrect and not based on significant relevant authority, so the High Court is not obliged to follow it.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 463
Parties
Prosecution: The Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Joseph O’Neill; Accused: Ross Brady; Accused: Cody Farrell; Accused: Evan Rothwell; Accused: Stuart Cooling
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Case Stated From District Court / High Court Judgment
Outcome
District Court dismissals affirmed; no remittal for further prosecution
Legal Topics
Drink Driving, Procedural Overlap, Stare Decisis, Treatment of Persons in Custody, Intoxilyzer Observation Period
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Drink Driving Procedural Overlap Stare Decisis Treatment of Persons in Custody Intoxilyzer Observation Period

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecution

Joseph O’Neill

Accused

Ross Brady

Accused

Cody Farrell

Accused

Evan Rothwell

Accused

Stuart Cooling

Accused

Procedural Posture

Case Stated From District Court / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 20-minute Intoxilyzer observation period can lawfully overlap with processing of an accused by the member in charge
  2. 2 Whether the High Court is obliged to follow a prior judgment of the same court
  3. 3 Effect of breach of procedural regulations on admissibility of evidence

Ratio Decidendi

There is no unlawfulness in overlap between the Intoxilyzer observation period and the processing of the accused by the member in charge; breach of procedural regulations must be accompanied by evidence of prejudice to exclude evidence; Moriarty J.'s judgment in Bohannon was incorrect and not based on significant relevant authority, so the High Court is not obliged to follow it.

Court Disposition

District Court dismissals affirmed; no remittal for further prosecution

Orders

  • Answers to consultative case stated: (a) No; (b) Yes.
  • Charges against the accused not remitted for further prosecution.