The High Court ruled that a District Court justice was not justified in dismissing a drink-driving charge because the prosecution had not established a continuous 20-minute observation period before a breath test. The ruling answered a question of law referred by the District Court; it did not itself record a conviction or sentence.
High Court rules evidence did not justify dismissing breath-test charge
The court answered a case stated from the District Court, finding the prosecution’s statutory presumption had not been rebutted by evidence about a Garda observation practice.
Who, what, where, when and why
- Who
See the report below for the parties involved.
- What
The court answered a case stated from the District Court, finding the prosecution’s statutory presumption had not been rebutted by evidence about a Garda observation practice.
- Where
No place detail is included in this summary.
- When
Judgment:
- Why
Reasons reported in the judgment
The High Court ruled that a District Court justice was not justified in dismissing a drink-driving charge because the prosecution had not established a continuous 20-minute observation period before a breath test. The ruling answered a question of law referred by the District Court; it did not itself record a conviction or sentence.
Read the original court judgment
Something looks wrong?
Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.