The High Court has rejected a challenge by the Director of Public Prosecutions to an order allowing detailed examination of the breath-testing machine used in Patrick James Flanagan's drink-driving prosecution.
Flanagan was convicted in the District Court in July 2023 of an offence under section 4(4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 after providing breath samples at Thurles Garda Station following his arrest on May 2, 2022. The evidenzer recorded an ethanol level which, after the statutory reduction, produced a reading of 66µg, compared with the ordinary legal limit of 22µg.
He appealed and sought access to the machine so his engineering expert, Dr Mark Jordan, could investigate its forensic integrity. The Circuit Court ordered in March 2025 that the inspection could extend to the machine's hardware, including removal of parts, and access to its software.
The DPP challenged that ruling by judicial review, arguing that the Circuit Court had misinterpreted Supreme Court authority, wrongly treated inspection as a right at whatever level the defence expert required, failed to properly consider cost and software confidentiality, and gave inadequate reasons.
Mr Justice Barr rejected those arguments. He found that the Circuit Court had recognised that inspection was a matter of judicial discretion and had considered extensive evidence from both Dr Jordan and Louise Lawlor of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety before deciding what level of inspection was necessary.
The High Court also rejected arguments based on the potential cost of rendering the machine unusable and the claimed contractual restriction on disclosure of software. The relevant non-disclosure clause had not itself been produced in evidence.
Mr Justice Barr concluded that the Circuit Court's decision was one it was entitled to reach and that no fundamental error of law had been shown.
The proposed order is to refuse the DPP's judicial review reliefs. Final orders and costs were left for a later hearing.