The Supreme Court has dismissed Michael Sweeney’s appeal against the refusal to quash his conviction for driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. The Court held that the evidence he offered did not displace statutory presumptions concerning the Medical Bureau of Road Safety’s analysis and certificate, and that the later drug certificate did not breach fair procedures.
Sweeney was stopped at a checkpoint on 30 October 2006 and provided a blood specimen. The Bureau’s first certificate, received by gardaí on 16 November, recorded no alcohol. A second certificate, received on 10 February 2007, reported a “cocaine class” substance. That certificate was admitted at his trial. On 7 December 2007, the District Court convicted him of driving while so affected by an intoxicant that he was incapable of proper control. He received six months’ imprisonment and a two-year driving disqualification.
Sweeney sought judicial review, arguing that the later certificate was invalid because of delay and that the interval between the certificates left open the possibility of contamination. He also said that, after receiving the negative alcohol result, he reasonably believed he faced no prosecution and discarded the portion of the sample he had kept. The Director of Public Prosecutions disputed the challenge and argued that complaints about the sufficiency of trial evidence were matters for an appeal, not judicial review.
The Supreme Court said the appeal concerned two main issues: whether the statutory presumption that the Bureau had complied with timing requirements had been displaced, and whether issuing the second certificate was unfair. The Court noted that Sweeney had called no evidence about the Bureau’s testing or processing, and that the dates of the two certificates alone were insufficient to displace the presumption. Alcohol and drug testing involved separate processes, the Court said, so the first certificate’s date was not necessarily the correct starting point for assessing the timing of the second analysis. The Court therefore did not need to decide whether the analysis and certificate had in fact been completed “as soon as practicable.”
On fairness, the Court found that the first certificate expressly concerned alcohol only. It did not amount to a representation that no drug test would follow or that prosecution was no longer possible. Sweeney was free to discard his retained sample, but the Court found no basis for attributing legal consequences of that choice to the prosecution.
The Court also held that challenges to the quality or sufficiency of the trial evidence were unsuitable for judicial review. It said Sweeney should have pursued the appeal he had lodged against his conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal; it did not quash the conviction.