The High Court upheld the dismissal of a drink-driving charge after a designated doctor accepted that he had not labelled or sealed the outer containers used for a urine sample. The court said that evidence, alongside conflicting evidence on other important facts, was enough to remove the statutory presumption that the required procedures had been followed.
The case arose from a mandatory alcohol-testing checkpoint on Whitehall Road West, Dublin, on 2 December 2007. Bernard Egan was stopped, failed a breath test and was arrested. At Crumlin Garda Station, he chose to provide a urine sample. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety later certified that it contained 351 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres, above the stated legal limit of 107 milligrams.
At the District Court hearing in March 2009, Dr Lone said he divided the sample between two bottles, sealed and labelled the bottles, and handed them to Garda Kelly. He accepted, however, that he had not labelled or sealed the outer containers with details relating to Egan. He could not explain the omission. He also accepted that the serial number written on a carbon copy of his notes had not been recorded contemporaneously, and could not recall when it was added.
The District Court judge found that the statutory procedures had not been complied with and dismissed the charge. The Director of Public Prosecutions brought a consultative case stated appeal, asking whether the judge had been correct in law to dismiss the case after finding the prosecution had not satisfied him that the procedures were followed.
The DPP argued that the law presumed compliance unless the contrary was shown, and that the defence had not rebutted that presumption. Egan’s counsel argued that the doctor’s evidence established non-compliance and that the District Court judge was entitled to make that factual finding.
President of the High Court Kearns answered the legal question “in the affirmative.” He said the doctor’s acceptance that he had failed to comply with section 18 was critical, and that the District Court judge was entitled to find the procedure had not been followed and dismiss the case. The judgment also referred to conflicting evidence on important factual issues as sufficient to remove the presumption of compliance.
The High Court’s decision addressed the legal question referred by the District Court. It did not make a new finding that Egan was guilty or determine a separate penalty.