A Portlaoise District Court judge has ruled that the offence of being in charge of a vehicle while over the alcohol limit, with intent to drive or attempt to drive, is a single offence under the Road Traffic Act 2010.
The ruling came after the defence argued that the charge against Christian Sebastian Plenus was framed as an intention to attempt to drive, while the Garda evidence described an intention to drive. Counsel David Staunton BL submitted that those were distinct alternatives and the particularised charge did not arise from the evidence.
Judge Andrew Cody rejected that submission in a judgment delivered on 22 February 2024. He distinguished the case from earlier Supreme Court rulings concerning the former Road Traffic Act 1961, finding that the 2010 legislation established a different regime. The judge said the statutory presumption covers an intention to drive or attempt to drive, and that the prosecution did not have to predict which would have occurred.
The charge alleges that Plenus was in charge of a car in a public place at Ballydavis, Portlaoise, on 26 June 2023, intending to attempt to drive it, while his breath alcohol concentration within three hours exceeded the statutory limit. The charge specifies a reading of 94 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. The judgment records this as an allegation; it does not determine guilt.
Garda Martin Fallon testified that he found an Audi stopped at the roadside, with its headlights on, a warm engine and the keys in the ignition. He said Plenus was the car’s sole occupant, but his position in the vehicle had not been recorded and Fallon could not recall where he had been seated. Fallon also described signs of intoxication and testified that Plenus said he was driving home from work in Tesco in Maynooth. A breath test certificate showing 94 microgrammes was tendered in evidence.
The judgment states that the evidence relevant to the direction sought did not appear to be disputed. The judge held that the difference between the wording of the charge and the statutory wording was minor, caused no prejudice, and did not defeat the prosecution. He therefore ruled that Plenus had a case to answer. The judgment does not record a verdict or sentence.