The High Court has ruled that a District Judge applied the law incorrectly when dismissing three separate drink-driving prosecutions after finding that Garda use of handcuffs made the arrests unlawful.
The appeals concerned Cicero Pires, James Corrigan and Paul Gannon. In each case the Director of Public Prosecutions challenged the District Court decision by way of case stated, a limited appeal confined to questions of law.
Pires had been observed swerving on Fortunestown Way and the Tallaght By-Pass before being stopped. Garda evidence was that he was intoxicated, physically larger than the lone arresting officer and had to be transported in a traffic jeep without prisoner protection.
Corrigan had nearly collided with another vehicle at a roundabout and continued driving erratically towards the M50. Garda evidence was that he was intoxicated but cooperative. One officer transported him alone in an ordinary patrol car after the other Garda drove Corrigan’s vehicle away for safety reasons.
Gannon had been driving at about 130mph on the M50. He cooperated when stopped, but the arresting Garda said handcuffs were used because they were beside a high-speed motorway and any struggle could have had serious consequences.
The District Judge dismissed each prosecution after concluding that the handcuffing was not objectively justified and therefore rendered the arrests unlawful.
Mr Justice Barrett held that this approach did not properly reflect the Supreme Court’s decision in DPP v Cullen. Gardaí must make an individual assessment, but the law gives them a generous measure of judgment and realistic latitude when deciding whether restraint is necessary.
The High Court stressed that officers may consider anticipated risks, not just aggression that has already occurred, and that courts should be slow to second-guess operational decisions.
The District Judge’s question in each case — whether he was correct in law to find the arrest unlawful — was therefore answered “No”.