The Court of Appeal has dismissed Michael Harty’s appeal against his conviction for dangerous driving causing the deaths of Maurice and Margaret Hartnett in County Limerick in 2009. It held that toxicology results from Harty’s hospital records were properly admitted at trial, despite the limited wording of a consent form he had signed.
Harty was convicted on 25 January 2013 and sentenced to five years in prison, with a 30-year driving disqualification. His appeal challenged the admission of a biochemistry report measuring his blood alcohol level. He argued that obtaining and using the report breached his constitutional right to privacy. His counsel also argued that obtaining the report required judicial authority akin to a search warrant.
The collision occurred on 29 July 2009 near Askeaton. The prosecution case included forensic evidence about the point of impact and evidence that Harty had consumed alcohol before the collision. The Court of Appeal’s judgment recounts that a blood sample was taken by hospital nursing staff at 8.15pm. It also records evidence from paramedics and public house witnesses about alcohol consumption that day. There was no eyewitness testimony to the collision.
A garda later obtained Harty’s signature on a standard form consenting to the Garda Síochána obtaining a medical report “on the injuries sustained by me”. Garda Cathy Healy sent a copy to a hospital laboratory manager when seeking blood test results. Healy accepted in evidence that she understood the form to permit access to all documents relating to Harty’s hospital stay. She had not told Harty the material might be used against him, and had not sought further consent.
The trial judge ruled that the report and related material were admissible, finding that the investigation and prosecution of crime qualified the privacy and medical confidentiality interests. The Court of Appeal had already dismissed the conviction appeal in an ex tempore judgment on 11 May 2015; the written judgment set out its fuller reasons.
The appeal court accepted that Harty could reasonably expect his medical records to be kept confidential for his care and treatment, but said that expectation was qualified. It found that the gardaí acted in good faith and without deliberate subterfuge or misrepresentation, although the consent form was limited to a report about his injuries. In the circumstances, the public interest in investigating a suspected serious crime outweighed his privacy and confidentiality interests. The court said his consent was not required for release of the toxicology report and that any interference with privacy was proportionate and necessary.
The court noted that later legislation created, in certain circumstances, an obligation for an injured driver to provide a blood or urine sample in hospital. It stressed that this legislation was not in force at the time of the offence and did not affect its conclusion. The appeal against conviction was dismissed; the judgment does not make a new sentencing order.