The High Court has refused to quash a conviction for driving under the influence of cannabis, finding that a motorist’s voluntary attendance at a garda station remained voluntary despite paperwork wrongly treating him as a person in custody.
The judgment, delivered by Kearns P. on 7 March 2014, concerned Robert Canty’s application for judicial review of a Circuit Court decision. That decision had dismissed his appeal against a District Court conviction under the Road Traffic Act 1961. The Circuit Court upheld a €400 fine and a four-year driving disqualification.
The prosecution evidence was that, on 30 September 2011, Garda Ferriter saw Canty driving a motor van erratically near Tarbert, Co. Kerry. The garda said Canty had red eyes, smelled strongly of what he believed was cannabis, admitted smoking a cannabis joint and had poor balance when he left the van. The garda formed the opinion that Canty was under the influence of a drug to the extent that he could not properly control the vehicle, and required him to accompany him to Listowel Garda Station.
Canty went to the station voluntarily and agreed to provide a urine sample. Analysis found drugs of the cannabinoid class. However, the station’s member in charge, Garda Daniel Maguire, entered Canty’s details in the custody record, described him in evidence as a prisoner and said he had explained the reason for his arrest and given him a notice of rights.
At the Circuit Court appeal, Canty argued that this treatment amounted to unlawful detention and that the urine evidence should therefore be excluded. The respondents accepted that he may have been misdescribed as a prisoner, but argued that he was never arrested or in custody and that the sample had been lawfully obtained.
The High Court noted that Canty had not given evidence in the District or Circuit Court challenging the account that he attended voluntarily and agreed to provide the sample. It held that section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 allowed a garda who formed the required opinion to require a person to attend a station, and permitted a urine sample to be required there even where the person was not under arrest.
Kearns P. found that a statutory basis existed for the steps taken, despite the paperwork appearing to have been completed on the mistaken assumption that Canty had been arrested. The court held that the misdescription did not turn his voluntary presence into involuntary detention. It declined to grant judicial review, leaving the Circuit Court decision and the fine and disqualification in place.