DPP v Cagney [2013] IESC 13 (11 March 2013)

DPP v Cagney [2013] IESC 13 (11 March 2013)

Where an accused establishes a special and substantial reason for failing to provide a breath specimen, they are entitled to an acquittal unless they were warned or informed by Gardaí that failure to offer a blood or urine sample would preclude reliance on the statutory defence under s.23 of the Road Traffic Act 1994.

Citation
[2013] IESC 13
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda S Keoghan); Defendant: Maresa Cagney
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Case Stated (criminal Appeal) / Supreme Court Appeal From Circuit Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; questions answered in favour of the defendant
Legal Topics
Drunk Driving Offences, Defences to Failure to Provide Breath Specimen, Interpretation of Road Traffic Act 1994 S.23, Constitutional Fairness in Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Constitutional Law Drunk Driving Offences Defences to Failure to Provide Breath Specimen Interpretation of Road Traffic Act 1994 S.23 Constitutional Fairness in Criminal Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda S Keoghan)

Prosecutor

Maresa Cagney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (criminal Appeal) / Supreme Court Appeal From Circuit Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a transient medical condition constitutes a 'special and substantial reason' under s.23 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 for failure to provide a breath specimen
  2. 2 Whether an accused is entitled to acquittal in absence of a requirement to provide blood or urine specimen under s.13(1)(b)
  3. 3 Whether there is an obligation on Gardaí to inform an accused that failure to offer a blood or urine sample precludes reliance on the s.23 defence

Ratio Decidendi

Where an accused establishes a special and substantial reason for failing to provide a breath specimen, they are entitled to an acquittal unless they were warned or informed by Gardaí that failure to offer a blood or urine sample would preclude reliance on the statutory defence under s.23 of the Road Traffic Act 1994.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; questions answered in favour of the defendant

Orders

  • Question 1 (special and substantial reason) answered Yes
  • Accused entitled to acquittal in absence of required warning or information from Gardaí regarding the need to offer blood or urine sample to avail of s.23 defence