The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court ruling that a District Court judge applied the wrong legal test when finding three drink-driving arrests unlawful because Gardaí had used handcuffs.
The appeal concerned three separate prosecutions under the Road Traffic Act 2010. The District Court judge had dismissed each case after deciding that handcuffing the accused men was not justified. The prosecution sought a ruling by way of case stated, asking whether the arrests had been correctly found unlawful.
The Court of Appeal, in a judgment delivered by Mr Justice Mahon on 21 December 2016, agreed with the High Court that the answer was no. It held that the District Court had assessed whether handcuffing was objectively justified, rather than asking whether each arresting Garda had genuinely and subjectively judged it necessary in the circumstances as the officer perceived them. The officers could not use handcuffs as a routine measure or under a blanket policy, but the decision was theirs to make on the facts of each case.
The three arrests took place in different circumstances. Cicero Pires was stopped on Fortunestown Road in Tallaght on 1 January 2014. The Garda said he used handcuffs because Pires was intoxicated, larger in stature, and would be transported alone in a Garda vehicle without an internal barrier. The judgment records no evidence that Pires was aggressive or agitated.
James Corrigan was stopped on Finglas Road on 28 May 2014 after his vehicle collided with another at a roundabout. The arresting Garda said Corrigan was jittery and that he was concerned about transporting him alone; he accepted Corrigan was cooperative and not aggressive. Paul Gannon was stopped on the M50 in Blanchardstown on 21 October 2013. The Garda said he used handcuffs because of the risks of a struggle on a busy motorway; Gannon was described as compliant and not aggressive.
The Court of Appeal noted that the District Court judge had not found that any Garda’s explanation was untrue, exaggerated or not genuinely held. It said the judge’s focus on the absence of objective justification did not follow the Supreme Court’s approach in DPP v Cullen. A case stated appeal is limited to errors of law, but a court may examine the reasoning behind findings to determine whether the correct legal principles were applied.
The Court of Appeal therefore agreed with the High Court’s answer to the legal question. The judgment did not determine guilt or innocence in the underlying prosecutions, nor did it make a separate finding about the admissibility of evidence or order a retrial.