D.P.P. v McNiece [2003] IESC 41 (14 July 2003)

D.P.P. v McNiece [2003] IESC 41 (14 July 2003)

On the evidence presented, including expert testimony and the trained operator's evidence, the 20-minute observation period prior to requiring breath specimens was objectively justified and reasonably necessary to ensure the validity and reliability of the breath test. The custody of the accused during this period was lawful. Prior observation by another Garda in uncontrolled circumstances could not substitute for the controlled observation by the trained operator.

Citation
[2003] IESC 41
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Damien McNiece
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
14 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Supreme Court Judgment on Consultative Case Stated
Outcome
Questions answered in the affirmative; detention and observation period lawful.
Legal Topics
Lawfulness of Detention, Breath Specimen Procedure, Objective Justification for Detention, Administration of Intoxilyser Tests
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Lawfulness of Detention Breath Specimen Procedure Objective Justification for Detention Administration of Intoxilyser Tests

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Damien McNiece

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Supreme Court Judgment on Consultative Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 20-minute observation period prior to requiring breath specimens is lawful and objectively justified
  2. 2 Whether prior observation by a different Garda can substitute for the 20-minute observation by the trained operator

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence presented, including expert testimony and the trained operator's evidence, the 20-minute observation period prior to requiring breath specimens was objectively justified and reasonably necessary to ensure the validity and reliability of the breath test. The custody of the accused during this period was lawful. Prior observation by another Garda in uncontrolled circumstances could not substitute for the controlled observation by the trained operator.

Court Disposition

Questions answered in the affirmative; detention and observation period lawful.

Orders

  • The two questions posed by the Circuit Judge are answered 'Yes'.