DPP set to appeal judgment impacting drink driving prosecutions

High Court reporters

The DPP is set to appeal a significant High Court decision which may have implications for thousands of drink-driving prosecutions.

The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Sara Phelan in a High Court challenge to a drink-driving conviction, concerns legal requirements governing the custody of blood and urine specimens taken from suspected drunk drivers up to when they are transferred for analysis.

Because of a break in the chain of custody of a blood specimen taken by gardaí from the man, the judge held he was entitled to an order overturning his January 2024 drink driving conviction and two-year driving ban.

On Thursday, barrister David Staunton, appearing for the DPP, told Ms Justice Phelan that based on her judgment, his client has indicated an intention to appeal the decision.

Ms Justice Phelan made final orders in the case, noting there was no application for a stay from the DPP.

The DPP now has 28 days to lodge its appeal of the judgment.

In her judgment, delivered in late July, Ms Justice Phelan acknowledged her decision would likely have implications beyond the subject case of the proceedings.

The judge’s decision identified an inconsistency in the law, and she said it is for the State to identify how to address that.

The prosecution of the man was based on a blood specimen taken on August 21st, 2022. A doctor who took the specimen completed a certificate, as required under section 15 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, relating to the taking and sealing of the specimen.

The specimen was later sent by gardaí to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety for analysis. The bureau certified the specimen contained a concentration of 126ml of alcohol per 100ml blood, in excess of the legal limit of 50ml alcohol per 100ml blood, resulting in the man’s prosecution.

During the subsequent District Court trial, a garda witness did not provide direct evidence about the whereabouts of a blood specimen prior to it being posted by gardaí to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, or about who had access to it.

The man’s solicitor sought a direction to dismiss the case on grounds of the failure to adduce such evidence, but the District Court refused to dismiss.

The District Court judge relied on a statutory presumption in other sections of the Road Traffic Act to the effect that the section 15 certificate was proof of the facts stated in the certificate unless the contrary was shown.

Ms Justice Phelan ruled the statutory presumption did not extend to covering the chain of custody after the container was sealed.

The Act requires the prosecution to provide evidence about the storage of the specimen from when it was sealed to when it was posted for analysis so as to exclude the possibility of interference with the sample, she held.

The certificate evidence cannot cover the chain of custody in that regard, she held.