Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Parker [2014] IEHC 652 (17 December 2014)

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Parker [2014] IEHC 652 (17 December 2014)

The mere fact that the accused's nominated solicitor was not contacted prior to the request for a blood sample, and the taking of a photograph without proper authorisation, did not render the evidence inadmissible or justify dismissal of the prosecution in the absence of prejudice or egregious constitutional breach.

Citation
[2014] IEHC 652
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Mary Gallagher); Defendant: Martin Parker
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Case Stated (consultative) / High Court Determination on Questions of Law
Outcome
Questions answered in favour of the prosecution; evidence not inadmissible; prosecution not dismissed.
Legal Topics
Right of Access to Solicitor, Admissibility of Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Procedural Fairness, Detention, Photographic Evidence
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Road Traffic Law Right of Access to Solicitor Admissibility of Evidence Forensic Evidence Procedural Fairness Detention +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Mary Gallagher)

Prosecutor

Martin Parker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Case Stated (consultative) / High Court Determination on Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to contact the accused's nominated solicitor prior to requesting a blood sample renders evidence inadmissible or justifies dismissal of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether taking a photograph of the accused without proper authorisation renders detention unlawful or evidence inadmissible

Ratio Decidendi

The mere fact that the accused's nominated solicitor was not contacted prior to the request for a blood sample, and the taking of a photograph without proper authorisation, did not render the evidence inadmissible or justify dismissal of the prosecution in the absence of prejudice or egregious constitutional breach.

Court Disposition

Questions answered in favour of the prosecution; evidence not inadmissible; prosecution not dismissed.

Orders

  • The evidence of the blood sample is admissible.
  • The taking of the photograph did not render detention unlawful or evidence inadmissible.