The Supreme Court has dismissed Michael Sweeney’s appeal against the High Court’s refusal to quash his conviction for driving while under the influence of a drug. It affirmed the High Court order, leaving the conviction and sentence undisturbed. The judgment addressed whether judicial review was available; it did not decide a fresh appeal on the merits of the conviction.
Sweeney was arrested at a Garda checkpoint in Farranamartin, Tuam, on 30 October 2006. Garda Paul Duane described him as disorientated, with bloodshot, glazed and dilated eyes, which he said could indicate alcohol or drug use. Sweeney provided two blood samples. A certificate received by Garda Duane on 16 November recorded no alcohol. A second certificate, received on 10 February 2007, reported “cocaine class”. A summons followed on 26 February.
At trial in the District Court on 7 December 2007, Sweeney said Gardaí had asked him to travel to Tuam and that an unmarked police car had followed him. Duane said he had no knowledge of the request and could not contradict the account of the unmarked car. Sweeney was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and disqualified from driving for two years.
Sweeney argued that the zero-alcohol certificate led him to believe he would not be prosecuted, and that he discarded the sample he had retained. The Court distinguished his case from one where prosecutors had expressly said there would be no prosecution: the certificate did not clearly assure him that drug testing or a later charge would not follow. It dismissed this ground.
He also argued that the drug certificate was not issued “as soon as practicable” and that the trial evidence did not establish he was incapable of driving because of cocaine. The Court held those issues were not suitable for judicial review in this case. The timing issue involved evidence about the Bureau’s process, and the accused bore the burden of establishing facts showing non-compliance. On incapacity, Garda Duane’s evidence that Sweeney appeared incapable of proper control was evidence for the District Judge to assess. Whether the evidence proved incapacity beyond reasonable doubt was for an appeal on the merits, which could rehear the case.
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had correctly dismissed the judicial review application and affirmed its order. It noted that the separate argument about the certificate’s use of the term “cocaine class” was not included in the notice of appeal and was not before it.