BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions >> D.P.P. (0'Brien) v. Cormack [1999] IESC 20; [1999] 1 ILRM 398 (22nd January, 1999) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/1999/20.html Cite as: [1999] 1 ILRM 398, [1999] IESC 20 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
1. The
Court has heard very interesting and at the same time succinct submissions on
each side of this case but since we have reached a clear conclusion as to the
result we do not think that there is any need to reserve judgment.
2. This
is an appeal brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions from the judgment
and order of the High Court (Quirke J.) of 22nd May, 1998, in which he answered
a question posed by District Judge Pattwell in a case stated for the opinion of
the High Court in favour of the respondent, Paul Cormack.
3. The
question posed for the opinion of the High Court was whether he was correct in
law in dismissing the charge that had been brought against the respondent.
4. The
case sets forth the facts very clearly, as well as the course of proceedings in
the District Court. District Judge Pattwell recounts that at a sitting of his
court at Cashel, Co. Tipperary on 21st May, 1997, Mr. Cormack appeared before
him charged that he did on 11th April, 1997, at Prices Lot, Cashel, Co.
Tipperary, drive a mechanically propelled motor car while there was an excess
quantity of alcohol in his body, in other words drunk driving. As it happens
when the result of the test came back he was about three and a half times over
the limit. The District Judge recounts that Garda Noel O’Brien on the
date in question, together with Sergeant Tom O’Brien, came to the scene
of an accident where one vehicle was involved, and it was in the side of the
ditch. Mr. Cormack was present and the gardaí spoke to him. Mr. Cormack
admitted driving the vehicle and stated that the accident had happened ten
minutes prior to the arrival of the gardaí. He also went on to say:
“This is the second car I have crashed, the wife will kill me.”
The gardaí also noticed that there were fresh marks in the ditch where
Mr. Cormack had struck the ditch and where the car had overturned. It was
blocking the public road and the keys were still in the ignition. The
gardaí smelt intoxicating liquor from the man’s breath and
5. The
District Judge came to dismiss the charge on the grounds that having regard to
the accused’s condition from drink there was insufficient evidence to
show that the vehicle had been driven in a public place within the relevant
statutory period of three hours.
6. The
learned High Court judge agreed with that conclusion. I must say that I cannot
see the rationale behind that at all. Once the man made an admission, then it
is clearly evidence and the District Judge was bound to accept it.
Unfortunately, there is I think a certain mythology abroad that some onus rests
on the prosecution to prove cases to an impossible extent so as to exclude
every hypothesis that might occur to the most ingenious mind. That is not the
law. Any admission said by a person, drunk or sober, is
prima
facie
admissible
in evidence. There may be cases where someone will say: “It was not a
voluntary statement, I was induced to make it,” or “I was forced to
make it,” or “I was beaten up to make it.” That is one thing;
but that is not this case. It might be that someone might say: “I was so
drunk that I did not know what I was saying”, or “I did not mean
what I said”. If the accused wants to get into
7. I
would also go on to hold that, even if there had been no admission in this
case, there was sufficient evidence to call for an answer from the accused. The
fact that the car had run into a ditch, had overturned and was blocking the
road, and the only person there was Mr. Cormack with the key in the ignition of
the car. All that would have entitled the District Judge to hold that, of
course, he had been driving within a period of three hours. I do not go so far
as to say that in relation to that evidence that the judge would be
bound
to
find that but it would certainly appear to me to be very coercive evidence that
he had been driving as recently as within the previous three hours - which is
the statutory requirement.
8. So
with great respect to the conclusion of the District Judge and of the High
Court judge, there is only one way that this matter could have been decided in
the state of the evidence presented to the court which was to hold that the
evidence was conclusive and bound the district judge to find that the man had
been driving the car within three hours.
9. So
to answer the question posed, I would reverse the order of the learned High
Court judge and I would answer the question posed in the case stated in the
negative. The case should be remitted to the District Court to enter
continuances.