Director of Public Prosecutions v Clyne (Approved) [2020] IECA 263 (30 September 2020)

Director of Public Prosecutions v Clyne (Approved) [2020] IECA 263 (30 September 2020)

Section 13B(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 is unambiguous; the tests listed in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are to be read disjunctively, so any one suffices for a lawful requirement to provide a blood specimen. Ordinary English syntax and legislative practice confirm this interpretation; strict construction and purposive approaches are not triggered absent ambiguity.

Citation
[2020] IECA 263
Parties
Prosecutor: Director of Public Prosecutions; Accused: Patrick Clyne
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Case Stated Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Case stated answered in favour of the prosecutor; appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Drug Driving, Blood Specimen Requirements, Penal Statutes
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Statutory Interpretation Drug Driving Blood Specimen Requirements Penal Statutes

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Director of Public Prosecutions

Prosecutor

Patrick Clyne

Accused

Procedural Posture

Case Stated Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.13B(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 requires all three tests or any one for lawful blood specimen requirement
  2. 2 Interpretation of statutory enumeration and syntax in penal statutes

Ratio Decidendi

Section 13B(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 is unambiguous; the tests listed in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) are to be read disjunctively, so any one suffices for a lawful requirement to provide a blood specimen. Ordinary English syntax and legislative practice confirm this interpretation; strict construction and purposive approaches are not triggered absent ambiguity.

Court Disposition

Case stated answered in favour of the prosecutor; appeal allowed.

Orders

  • It is sufficient for a Garda to have carried out any one of the tests specified in s.13B(1) paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) to lawfully require a blood specimen.