Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal sets aside a conviction from the High Court, finding that the appellant was not lawfully required to permit a blood sample after failing to provide a urine sample under statute. The Court determined that the guard should have reintroduced the requirement for a blood sample, ensuring a fair and certain process. The original decision by the District Court to convict the appellant was deemed incorrect, as the refusal to permit a blood sample could not be inferred from the appellant's actions without a clear and direct requirement being made after the failure to provide a urine sample.
Court of Appeal, Road Traffic Act 2010, refusal to permit blood sample, procedural fairness, statutory requirement, urine sample, evidential breath testing apparatus, designated doctor, Garda Síochána, criminal offence, fair procedures, conviction set aside, statutory interpretation, self-incrimination, Director of Public Prosecutions v. Swan, Director of Public Prosecutions v. Mangan, legal certainty.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now