The High Court ruled that a garda acted within implied authority when she entered a woman’s driveway and opened her car door to speak to her after observing suspicious driving. The court answered “No” to the constitutional-rights question referred to it and said the other questions did not arise.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Herbert on 31 July 2007, arose from a case stated by a Cork City District Court judge under section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961. The District Court had asked the High Court to address legal questions following a defence submission that there was no case to answer.
The defendant faced allegations arising from 8 January 2005: driving in a public place while so affected by an intoxicant that she was incapable of proper control, and later failing to provide a blood or urine sample after a requirement under road traffic legislation. Those were allegations in the summonses, not findings made in this High Court judgment.
The District Court judge recorded that Garda Murphy saw the car being driven erratically before it entered the defendant’s driveway. The judge found that the garda opened the car door without first trying to communicate with the defendant and that it was not necessary to open the door to initiate communication. The garda’s evidence was that she suspected the driver was under the influence, spoke to her, and later arrested her.
Mr Justice Herbert considered whether the garda had implied authority to enter the driveway to investigate. He said the Supreme Court’s decision in DPP v Molloy was binding and treated it as recognising such authority in circumstances involving a person’s own driveway. He found that the defendant’s failure to open the car door or window could not reasonably be treated as a clear and intentional withdrawal of that authority on the facts recorded.
The judge also held that the implied authority to approach and speak to the car’s occupant could, in the circumstances, include opening the car door without prior permission, provided the garda did not act arbitrarily, capriciously or unlawfully. He concluded that Garda Murphy’s actions were for the purpose of enforcing the law and did not breach the defendant’s legal or constitutional rights.
The High Court said questions about admissibility of evidence and the garda’s authority to make the sample requirement did not arise. It also did not decide whether evidence should be excluded or whether the arrest was unlawful. The judgment answered the referred constitutional question “No”; it did not determine guilt or dispose of the underlying charges.