D.P.P. v. Connell [1997] IEHC 160; [1998] 3 IR 62 (16th October, 1997)

D.P.P. v. Connell [1997] IEHC 160; [1998] 3 IR 62 (16th October, 1997)

The arrest was lawful under Section 49(8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, because the defendant was sufficiently informed of the reason for his arrest, and the statutory citation error did not invalidate the arrest.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 160
Parties
Defendant: Francis Connell; Prosecutor: The State
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated / High Court Determination
Outcome
First question answered in the affirmative; second question does not arise.
Legal Topics
Validity of Arrest, Admissibility of Evidence, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Validity of Arrest Admissibility of Evidence Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Connell

Defendant

The State

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated / High Court Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the arrest under Section 49(8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, was valid
  2. 2 Whether subsequent evidence is admissible if the arrest was invalid

Ratio Decidendi

The arrest was lawful under Section 49(8) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, as inserted by Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, because the defendant was sufficiently informed of the reason for his arrest, and the statutory citation error did not invalidate the arrest.

Court Disposition

First question answered in the affirmative; second question does not arise.