The High Court ruled that Gardaí were not obliged to explain to a woman why she waited at the roadside for about nine minutes after her arrest while a custody van was arranged during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Mr Justice Charles Meenan gave the ruling on questions of law referred by a District Court judge in a case stated arising from a prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 2020. The defendant was charged with driving with 59 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, above the stated limit of 22 micrograms.
The charge arose from events on 30 May 2020. Garda John Hayes told the District Court that he saw a vehicle weaving and driving on the wrong side of Foxrock Avenue, stopped it on Kill Lane and found the defendant driving. He said he detected a strong smell of alcohol and observed that her eyes were glazed. A roadside breath test failed, and she was taken to Dún Laoghaire Garda station for an evidential breath test.
The District Court judge found that the defendant was lawfully arrested at 2.26am and that the reason for the arrest was explained. She waited at the roadside for about nine minutes for a custody van. The court heard that, because of Covid-19 infection-control measures, arrested people were not being transported in ordinary patrol cars. The judge found no evidence that Gardaí explained the reason for the wait.
The defendant argued that Gardaí should have told her that she remained under arrest, was not free to leave, and was waiting for a van to take her to the station. The prosecution argued that arranging safe transport was part of the overall detention, relying on earlier cases concerning delays during drink-driving procedures.
The High Court said the District Court judge had applied the law correctly. It considered the short delay reasonable in the circumstances and accepted that using a van rather than a patrol car was a measure to support social distancing. The judge also said some delay would have occurred in arranging transport even without the pandemic measures.
Answering the first question referred, the High Court said there was no obligation in these circumstances to inform the defendant of the reason for the roadside delay. It therefore did not need to determine the conditional second question—whether a failure to explain would have made the detention unlawful. The court’s answers addressed the stated legal questions; the judgment does not record a final determination of the underlying charge.
The judge directed that the matter be listed for mention on 17 November 2022 and stated a provisional view, subject to submissions, that the prosecution was entitled to costs. The judgment does not record a final costs order.