The District Court at Dungarvan refused an accused’s application for a direction at the close of the prosecution case in a drug-driving case, rejecting both grounds advanced against the prosecution evidence.
The accused was charged under section 4(1A) of the Road Traffic Act 2010, as amended. The provision concerns driving or attempting to drive in a public place when an unlawful concentration of specified drugs is present in the person’s blood within three hours, absent a relevant medical exemption certificate.
The first challenge concerned the sequence followed by a designated doctor under section 15. A garda told the court that the doctor processed the blood specimens, sealed the bottles and containers, completed the certificate, and then handed the sealed containers to the garda. The accused argued that the containers had to be handed over before the certificate was completed, and that the difference undermined the certificate and its evidential presumption.
Judge Brian O’Shea said the alleged sequencing flaw fell within the category addressed by the Supreme Court in *DPP v Avadenei*: a procedural breach that may affect fair-trial rights. The relevant question was the error’s actual effect. The judge said the containers were sealed when given to the garda and when the accused was offered the choice of retaining one. He described the conflict between the garda’s account and the certificate as insignificant, and said that, even assuming an error, it caused no unfairness, prejudice or detriment. The resulting evidence was admissible. The court did not determine that a procedural error had occurred.
The second challenge asked whether the accused had to be told that choosing a blood specimen could expose him to a charge under section 4(1A), while a urine specimen could not lead to that charge. The court said a person required to provide a specimen must be told that failure to comply is a criminal offence. The evidence was that the requirement was lawfully made and the accused was given that warning. The judge held there was no obligation to explain the various possible charges arising from different specimen types; setting out penalties, though common, was unnecessary.
The application was refused on both grounds. The judgment addressed the application at the close of the prosecution case; it did not determine guilt or state the final outcome of the prosecution.