In the Irish Courts
| DOI | 10.1177/002201837704100209 |
| Published date | 01 April 1977 |
| Date | 01 April 1977 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
In
the Irish Courts
Comments
on
Cases
SUPREME
COURT
IN
EIRE
DUPLICITY AND
UNCERTAINTY
OF
THE
CHARGE
The
State
(McGroddy)
v. Carr
In this case (1975, I.R. 275), a
person
who
had
been
convicted
of
a
road
traffic
offence
sought
to have his
conviction
quashed
by
an
order
of
certiorari. He had
been
charged
with
driving a
motor
car
in a
public
place
"while
under
the
influence
of
intoxicating
liquor
or a
drug
to such an
extent
as to be incapable
of
having
proper
control
of
the
said vehicle,
contrary
to s.49
of
the
Road
Traffic
Act,
1961-1968".
He was
convicted
of
"the
said
offence",
fined
£10
with
seven
days'
imprisonment
in
default,
disqualified for
twelve
months
and
his licence was endorsed. He applied to
the
High
Court
for an
order
of
certiorari
to squash
the
conviction,
on
the
ground
that
it was
bad
for
duplicity;
and
that
court
eventually
granted
the
order
on
that
ground. On appeal to
the
Supreme
Court,
it was argued
that
this decision was
erroneous,
in
that
s.49
created
only
one
offence
(and
not
two,
as
the
defendant
had
contended).
In
the
result,
the
three
judges
of
the
Supreme
Court
were divided,
but
the
majority
overruled
the
High
Court,
thus
supporting
the
proposition
that
the
section creates
only
one
offence, so
that
the
conviction
could
not
be said to be invalid
on
the
ground
of
uncertainty.
The
argument
relied on
by
the
prosecution
was
that
the
offence
created
by
the
section
was in
pith
and
substance
the
attempt
-
completed
or
uncompleted
- to drive avehicle while in a self-
induced
state
of
incapacity.
The
words
"under
the
influence
of
intoxicating
liquor
or a
drug"
are
merely
adjectival
and
illustrate
the
means
by
which
one
may
incapacitate
oneself
from
driving or
attempting
to
drive
the
vehicle.
The
prosecution
claimed
that
this
view
of
s.49 was in
accordance
with
the
whole
trend
of
the
Acts, which was to
create
a single separate
offence
in each sub-
section.
Thus,
the
conviction
was
not
in
the
alternative
and
was
not
a
conviction
of
two
offences; it was a
conviction
of
driving while
incapacitated.
This
is
the
view
taken
of
similar provisions in
the
relevant English legislation
by
the
Divisional
Court
in England:
see Thomson v. Knights (1947, K.B.
336).
It
was
pointed
out
by
Walsh J. in
the
course
of
his dissenting
judgment
in
the
instant
case
that
the
English
and
Irish
courts
have
123
To continue reading
Request your trial