High Court answers case stated by District Court in the negative, finding that the trial judge was not entitled to determine that he was not satisfied that a reasonable opinion was formed by a member of An Garda Síochána to justify the arrest of the accused as there was no onus on the prosecution to give positive evidence of the calibration of a breath-test device when establishing the formation of such a bona fide opinion as this was a matter that could be raised by the defence in cross-examination excluding or not the possibility that a device was incorrectly calibrated.
Case stated from the District Court - accused charged with driving while intoxicated - s. 4 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 - breath test using a device known as the Dragër Alcotest 6510 - two settings, one for 'specified drivers', being, inter alia, learner drivers and taxi drivers, and other for all non-specified drivers - higher concentration of alcohol in breath required for non-specified drivers to fail the test - not established in evidence that correct setting was used for the accused, who held a full driving licence - whether trial judge entitled to determine that he was not satisfied that a reasonable opinion was formed by garda to justify the arrest of the accused for an offence under s. 4 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 following a failed preliminary breath test where not established that the device had been calibrated to produce a pass/fail reading commensurate with the category of driving licence of the accused and where the failed test was a material and/or determining factor in the formation of the opinion.