The High Court has ruled that a judge may find an arrest invalid if an accused person does not know why they are being arrested. But in this case, the court found there was no evidence that the respondent did not understand the reason for his arrest, and answered “No” when asked whether the District Court had discretion to dismiss both charges in the circumstances presented.
The case came before the High Court by way of a case stated from the District Court. The respondent had faced a charge alleging that, on 4 April 2013 in Ballymun, he was in charge of a vehicle while over the statutory alcohol limit and intended to drive. A separate charge under section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 was not the subject of the case stated.
The District Court heard evidence that gardaí found the respondent asleep in the driver’s seat shortly before midnight. The engine was running, the keys were in the ignition and the car’s lights were on. The arresting garda said the respondent smelled of alcohol, had glazed eyes and slurred speech. Asked where he was going, the respondent said he was heading home to Finglas. The garda told him he was being arrested for being “drunk in charge” and then for being drunk behind the wheel while the vehicle was running.
The District Judge found that the respondent had not understood the reason for his arrest, and that being told he was “drunk in charge” did not sufficiently explain the offence’s essential element: intent to drive. She dismissed both charges, ruling the arrest unlawful. At the prosecution’s request, she referred two questions to the High Court: whether she could find the arrest invalid if the respondent did not understand the reason, and whether she could then dismiss both charges.
The High Court reviewed the law on communicating reasons for arrest, including earlier cases holding that technical wording is unnecessary if the person knows in substance why they are being arrested. It said the circumstances could convey the reason: the respondent was at the wheel with the engine running and lights on, said he was going home without suggesting another means of travel, and the garda suspected he had consumed excessive alcohol.
The court concluded there was no evidence before the District Judge to support the finding that the respondent misunderstood or could not have understood the reason for arrest. It answered the first question by saying a judge may find an arrest invalid where an accused does not know its reason. It answered the second “No”. The High Court did not determine the underlying charges in this case stated.