Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court answers consultative case arising from District Court drink driving prosecution in the negative, finding that: a) there is no statutory requirement imposed on the designated medical practitioner to take the sample of urine from the accused directly (this only arises in respect of the taking of the blood sample); b) there is no requirement that the doctor be present at the moment of urination or the filling of the receptacle; and c) even if there was such a requirement, it would not be sufficient to justifying the dismissal of the proceedings.
Criminal law – consultative case stated – drink driving – s. 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 – driving while having alcohol in the accused's body – s. 12(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act, 2010 – manner of the “provision” of the sample – s. 15 of the Road Traffic Act, 2010 – whether there is a requirement to comply “immediately” with the requirement – whether the provision of the urine sample by the accused person in the physical presence of a supervising Garda but not in the sight of the designated doctor might constitute an abrogation of the doctor’s statutory responsibility – there is no statutory requirement imposed on the designated practitioner to take the sample of urine from the accused directly – there is no requirement that the doctor be present at the moment of urination or the filling of the receptacle – consultative case stated answered.
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.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now