Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Drink driving accused was entitled to inspection of intoxilyser machine
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court allows appeal from High Court, and grants judicial review quashing District Court conviction for drink driving, where the District Court had refused to order inspection of the intoxilyser machine, or disclosure of certain documents concerning its service record, or to give reasons for such refusal, on the grounds that the accused was entitled to trial in due course of law, and to be given an opportunity to challenge any evidence put forward by the prosecution.
Hardiman J (nem diss): Judicial review - application to quash conviction for drink driving - s. 49(4) and (6)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 as inserted by s.10 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 - appeal from refusal of judicial review in High Court (Charleton J) - excess alcohol in breath - complex and confusing statutory provisions - s.33 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 - independent analysis - right of accused to specimen of blood or urine - not possible to preserve breath sample for subsequent analysis - fair procedures and constitutional justice - discretion on part of Garda as to whether person required to provide breath, blood or urine - legal consequences of practical abolition of independent analysis - application before District Court for examination of Intoxiliser machine - refusal without reasons - whether system fallible - variation in two readings from machine - refusal of both inspection facilities and requested documentation - repeated adjournments of hearing - seven hearing dates - failure of prosecuting superintendent to read case law provided - right of accused to inspect breath testing machine - opportunity of accused person to defend himself - right of cross-examination - fair procedures - right to rebut evidence - whether authority on inspection of machine had been overturned (as found by District Court judge) - discretion of judge as to whether to grant inspection or documents - provisions in other common law jurisdictions - right in California to inspect machine - requirement that trials be conducted in due course of law - comparison with New Zealand Bill of Rights - whether entitled to documentation under Freedom of Information legislation - whether onus on accused to show that there might be a problem with the machine - duty to give reasons - failure to put forward point when applying for leave to seek judicial review.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
