D.P.P. v. Mangan [2001] IESC 40; [2001] 2 IR 373; [2002] 1 ILRM 417 (6 April 2001)

D.P.P. v. Mangan [2001] IESC 40; [2001] 2 IR 373; [2002] 1 ILRM 417 (6 April 2001)

The omission of the year '1994' after 'Road Traffic Act' was immaterial where the statutory context and requirements were made clear to the appellant, and the obligation to provide a blood specimen revived after bona fide failure to provide urine, making the subsequent requirement lawful under s.13(1)(b) of the 1994 Act.

Citation
[2001] IESC 40
Parties
Appellant: Simon Mangan; Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
06 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Consultative Case Stated (circuit Court Appeal) / Supreme Court Judgment on Case Stated
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; questions in Case Stated answered in favour of the prosecution.
Legal Topics
Refusal to Provide Specimen, Interpretation of Statutory Requirements, Self Incrimination Exceptions, Procedural Fairness in Criminal Prosecutions
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Refusal to Provide Specimen Interpretation of Statutory Requirements Self Incrimination Exceptions Procedural Fairness in Criminal Prosecutions

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Mangan

Appellant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Consultative Case Stated (circuit Court Appeal) / Supreme Court Judgment on Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to specify 'Road Traffic Act, 1994' when making a requirement under s.13(1)(b) is fatal to prosecution
  2. 2 Whether the obligation to provide a blood specimen revives after bona fide failed attempt to provide urine specimen
  3. 3 Whether the requirement made at 1.48 a.m. was a lawful requirement under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of the year '1994' after 'Road Traffic Act' was immaterial where the statutory context and requirements were made clear to the appellant, and the obligation to provide a blood specimen revived after bona fide failure to provide urine, making the subsequent requirement lawful under s.13(1)(b) of the 1994 Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; questions in Case Stated answered in favour of the prosecution.

Orders

  • First question answered 'yes': the judge was entitled to infer the requirement was made under the Road Traffic Act, 1994.
  • Second question answered 'yes': the requirement at 1.48 a.m. was a repetition or otiose.