User:SkiTub98/sandbox

Director of Public Prosecution v. Finn was an Irish Supreme Court case concerning evidence obtained during an illegal detention. The case concerned an individual detained for an offence of driving under the influence of alcohol under the Road Traffic Act 1961. The Circuit Court ruled that the individual had been unlawfully held in Garda custody. The case was then referred to the Supreme Court, which upheld the Circuit Court ruling.

Director of Public Prosecution v Finn
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court	Supreme Court of Ireland
Citations	Director of Public Prosecution v Michael Finn [2003] IESC 1, [1992] 1 IR 1
Court membership
Judges sitting	Keane CJ, Denham J, Murray J, McGuinness J, Hardiman J
Keywords
Constitution Personal Rights

Background

Under Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, it was an offence to drive a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 required any person arrested under suspicion of driving under the influence to provide a breath sample to establish whether they were intoxicated. Michael Finn was arrested under suspicion of driving under the influence, and was brought to Dun Laoighere Garda station. Finn was then held for twenty minutes before being asked to provide a breath sample to measure the alcohol content in his bloodstream. He refused to do so. The twenty minute wait was a policy recommended by Gardai guidelines to prevent an accused person from eating food. Finn was charged with failing to provide a breath sample and for driving under the influence. A case was taken to the Circuit Court, where Finn argued that the twenty minute wait amounted to unlawful detention. The Circuit Court referred the case to the Supreme Court to determine whether the wait was illegal, and if that then rendered any evidence as inadmissible.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court found unanimously in favor of Finn, declaring the detention illegal and the evidence inadmissible. Teh Gardai had violated Finns right to

Murray J for

Hardiman J

External links

Sample Categories:

[[Category:2003 in case law]] [[Category:2003 in Irish law]] [[Category:2003 in the Republic of Ireland]] [[Category:Irish abortion case law]] [[Category:Republic of Ireland constitutional case law]] [[Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases]]

SECOND CASE

Director of Public Prosecution v. McNiece

example infobox
Coat of arms of Ireland
Court	Supreme Court of Ireland
Citations	Attorney General v X [1992] IESC 1, [1992] 1 IR 1
Court membership
Judges sitting	Finlay CJ, McCarthy J, O'Flatherty J, Egan J, Hederman J
Case opinions
Under Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution, termination of pregnancy is only permissible where there is a "real and substantial risk to the life of the mother", including a real and substantial risk of suicide. To require there to be a risk of immediate or inevitable death would not adequately vindicate the right to life of the mother.
Keywords
Constitution Personal Rights Right to Life Unborn Right to Travel Abortion Suicide Injunction

Director of Public Prosecutions v. McNiece was a Supreme Court of Ireland criminal case that concerned whether detention of an arrested person prior to them providing physical evidence was legal.

Background

Damien McNiece was arrested by the Gardai for driving under the influence in the Blanchardstown suburb of County Dublin. Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 makes it an offence to drive a vehicle under the influence of alcohol. McNiece was brought to a Garda station, where he was observed for twenty minutes before being administered a breathalyzer test. Section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 requires a person suspected of driving under the influence to provide breath samples to determine their blood alcohol levels. The Garda that administered the test had McNiece wait to ensure he had no alcohol in his mouth that would interfere with the test. The Garada then alleged McNiece failed to provide any samples, which McNiece disputed. McNiece filed suit alleging that his observation before being administered the test amounted to unlawful detention. The case was referred to the Supreme Court from the Circuit Court.

Opinion of the Court

The Court held that McNiece had been held lawfully as the twenty minute waiting period had been enacted in accordance with medical procedures. The case was distinguished from Director of Public Prosecutions v Finn as in that case there had not been official guidlines or procedure that the officer was following.

External links

Sample Categories:

[[Category:1992 in case law]] [[Category:1992 in Irish law]] [[Category:1992 in the Republic of Ireland]] [[Category:Republic of Ireland constitutional case law]] [[Category:Supreme Court of Ireland cases]]