DPP v Pires DPP v Corrigan DPP v Gannon

Factual and Procedural Background

The case consolidates three separate prosecutions under sections 4(4)(b) and 5 of the Road Traffic Act 2010. Each Appellant was arrested on suspicion of drink-driving and was hand-cuffed at the point of arrest. In the District Court, Judge [Last Name] ruled that the hand-cuffing rendered each arrest unlawful and dismissed the prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecutions (“Respondent”) appealed to the High Court by way of case stated under section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857 (as extended by section 51 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961). The High Court (Judge [Last Name]) held that the District Court had misapplied the principles in DPP v Cullen and answered the case stated against the Appellants. The Court of Appeal (Judge [Last Name], with two judges concurring) affirmed that decision. The present judgment is the Supreme Court’s determination of the Appellants’ further appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court and Court of Appeal correctly identified and applied the scope of an appeal by way of case stated under section 2 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1857.
2. Whether those courts correctly applied the legal principles on the use of handcuffs established in DPP v Cullen when assessing the lawfulness of the arrests.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

• The courts below exceeded the limited remit of a section 2 case stated by reassessing facts found by the District Court.
• The District Court correctly applied DPP v Cullen by requiring an objective justification for hand-cuffing; the higher courts wrongly substituted a “subjective” test.
• Findings that the District Judge afforded insufficient latitude to the arresting officers were unsupported by evidence and amounted to an impermissible review of factual determinations.

Respondent’s Arguments

• The issue on appeal was purely a question of law: whether the District Court applied the correct legal test under Cullen, not a dispute about primary facts.
• Cullen affords arresting officers a “generous measure of judgment”; the District Court erred by insisting on objective justification where the officers’ genuine beliefs were unchallenged.
• Accordingly, the High Court and Court of Appeal were entitled to intervene and to answer the case stated in the Respondent’s favour.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court began by reaffirming that a section 2 case stated is confined to questions of law. It held that whether the District Court correctly applied DPP v Cullen is such a question, even though it requires consideration of underlying facts.

Turning to Cullen, the Court emphasised the following principles:

• The arresting officer may use such force as he or she genuinely believes to be reasonably necessary in the circumstances.
• Courts should be “slow to review” operational policing decisions and must afford officers a “generous measure of judgment.”
• An “objective justification” test is inconsistent with Cullen; the key inquiry is the sincerity of the officer’s belief, subject to plausibility checks.

Examining the three cases, the Court noted that:

• Each Garda articulated reasons for hand-cuffing linked to safety and prevailing circumstances.
• The District Judge did not reject those reasons as untruthful, exaggerated, or implausible; instead, the Judge ruled that hand-cuffing was “not objectively justified.”
• By substituting an objective test and failing to accord the required latitude, the District Judge misapplied Cullen.

As the High Court and Court of Appeal had reached the same conclusion, the Supreme Court found no error in their approach.

Holding and Implications

APPEALS DISMISSED.

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court and Court of Appeal, holding that the District Court erred in law. The arrests were lawful and the prosecutions may proceed. The decision reiterates two key points: (1) the narrow scope of section 2 case stated appeals—limited to legal, not factual, error; and (2) the correct application of DPP v Cullen, confirming that courts must defer to an arresting officer’s genuine, case-specific judgment on the use of handcuffs. No new precedent is created, but the ruling clarifies how Cullen should be applied in future drink-driving arrests.