The High Court allowed a prosecution appeal after a District Court judge dismissed a drunken-driving case because the charge sheet named the street where the driver was directed to pull over, rather than where Gardaí first stopped him. The High Court held that obeying a lawful direction to move to a safe place did not make the driving involuntary or exempt the driver from prosecution.
The case came before Mr Justice Charleton by way of case stated, following the District Court’s dismissal of the prosecution. The question was whether the District Judge was correct in law to dismiss the case because of the location stated on the charge sheet.
The prosecution evidence was that, at about 10.20am on 13 May 2007, Garda Francis McMahon saw two vehicles travelling the wrong way across Capel Street Bridge in Dublin. He stopped the first vehicle, driven by John Rafferty, and directed him to pull onto Lower Ormond Quay to avoid obstructing traffic. The charge sheet identified Lower Ormond Quay as the offence location.
According to the judgment, Garda McMahon noticed a smell of alcohol, slurred speech and glazed eyes while speaking with Rafferty. He arrested him on suspicion of a road traffic offence. At Store Street Garda Station, Rafferty provided two breath specimens; the test result was 49 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. The judgment records these matters as evidence presented in the prosecution.
At the close of that evidence, the defence applied to have the case dismissed. It argued that Rafferty had driven onto Lower Ormond Quay only because the Garda directed him to do so, making that movement involuntary. The defence also submitted that the charge sheet could have been amended to give the location where the vehicle was first stopped, and said he might otherwise have had no defence. The prosecution argued that there was no prejudice and that its evidence met the required standard.
The District Judge dismissed the case because the charge sheet gave the wrong location. On appeal, the High Court considered the District Court Rules, which allow a court to address differences between a charge document and the evidence, unless the accused was misled or prejudiced or the difference might affect the case’s merits.
Mr Justice Charleton concluded that Rafferty knew where he had been stopped and in what circumstances. A Garda could direct a vehicle to a nearby safe place, and a driver who complied was acting voluntarily in criminal law, the judge held. The District Judge’s interpretation was understandable but wrong. The High Court answered the stated question against the District Judge and allowed the prosecution appeal. The judgment does not record a conviction or determine the charge itself.