The High Court ruled that a man’s detention in a cell at Ballina Garda station while he waited for a doctor to take a blood sample was lawful in the circumstances of the case.
Mr Justice Eagar gave the judgment on 13 January 2017 in a consultative case stated from the District Court. Judge Mary Devins had asked whether the detention was unlawful and, if so, whether evidence obtained afterwards was inadmissible.
Geoffrey Laing faced a charge alleging that he drove on Tolan Street, Ballina, on 21 September 2013 with an alcohol concentration above the legal limit. The judgment records that Garda Caroline Clarke attended a traffic accident, formed the opinion that Laing had consumed alcohol and arrested him after he failed a roadside breath test. A later certificate from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety recorded 253 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.
At Ballina Garda station, the member in charge, Garda Sean Haugh, gave Laing his rights and placed him in a cell at 4.10pm. Haugh said he was the only member responsible for prisoners and had other duties, including answering calls and attending the hatch. He said placing a prisoner in a cell while waiting for a doctor was routine. The doctor arrived at 4.45pm, took a blood sample, and Laing was released at 4.59pm.
The defence argued that putting Laing in a cell for administrative convenience unjustifiably interfered with his liberty. It submitted that the decision should have been based on an assessment of his individual circumstances, and relied on Supreme Court decisions concerning routine handcuffing and detention. The prosecution argued that Laing’s arrest and detention to obtain a statutory sample were lawful, and that the cell was a practical means of keeping him at the station while the lone member in charge carried out other duties.
The High Court said the legislation allowed detention for the time reasonably needed to obtain a sample but did not expressly address whether a person could be placed in a cell while awaiting a doctor. It accepted that cells were “not ideal”, but considered the station’s staffing circumstances and the limited period involved. The judgment said the member in charge had to deal with other people arriving at the station, phone calls and hatch duties while ensuring Laing remained there.
The court answered the first question by finding that the station detention was not unlawful in the circumstances. It therefore said the second question, about whether evidence obtained afterwards was inadmissible, did not arise. The judgment addressed the lawfulness of the detention; it does not record the outcome of the underlying drink-driving charge.