DPP -v- McCrea [2010] IESC 60 (09 December 2010)

DPP -v- McCrea [2010] IESC 60 (09 December 2010)

The District Judge was entitled, on the facts found, to dismiss the charge because the defendant was denied reasonable access to a solicitor as required by statutory regulation and as advised by the gardaí themselves. The garda's mistaken belief about the procedure did not justify the refusal. The defendant was entitled to rely on the unqualified advice that he could consult a solicitor at any time while in custody.

Citation
[2010] IESC 60
Parties
Prosecutor/appellant: Director of Public Prosecutions at the suit of Garda Brian Lavelle; Defendant/respondent: Paul McCrea
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
09 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court, Which Affirmed District Court Dismissal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed; charge against defendant remains dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Access to Solicitor, Breath Specimen Refusal, Exclusionary Rule, Statutory Interpretation, Reasonable Access in Custody
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Right of Access to Solicitor Breath Specimen Refusal Exclusionary Rule Statutory Interpretation Reasonable Access in Custody

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions at the suit of Garda Brian Lavelle

Prosecutor/appellant

Paul McCrea

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court, Which Affirmed District Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether refusal of access to a solicitor before requiring a breath specimen invalidates the charge
  2. 2 Whether the garda's mistaken belief about procedure was a reasonable ground for refusal
  3. 3 Whether the statutory and constitutional right to consult a solicitor was breached

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge was entitled, on the facts found, to dismiss the charge because the defendant was denied reasonable access to a solicitor as required by statutory regulation and as advised by the gardaí themselves. The garda's mistaken belief about the procedure did not justify the refusal. The defendant was entitled to rely on the unqualified advice that he could consult a solicitor at any time while in custody.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed; charge against defendant remains dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court order affirmed