The High Court has ruled that an inaccurate warning about a possible driving disqualification did not provide a legal basis to dismiss a charge of refusing to provide a blood or urine specimen in a drunk-driving investigation.
Ms Justice Faherty gave the ruling on 6 October 2017 in a consultative case stated from Castlebar District Court. The question was whether the charge should be dismissed because the Garda’s warning about the possible disqualification period was incorrect.
The accused was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving on 9 November 2014 and taken to Ballinrobe Garda Station. Garda Colin Murrin required a blood or urine specimen. The accused first opted to provide urine but could not do so, then refused a blood sample, citing fear of needles. The Garda warned that refusal was an offence and explained the potential prison term and fine. He also said refusal could lead to disqualification for up to four years. The judgment records that the actual potential disqualification exposure was greater than four years.
At the close of the prosecution case in October 2015, the defence asked the District Court to dismiss the charge, arguing that the incorrect warning meant the accused had not been properly informed of the consequences. The prosecution submitted that the error did not prejudice him and that the Garda had no obligation to explain the consequential disqualification order. The District Judge referred the legal question to the High Court; the judgment does not decide the accused’s guilt.
Justice Faherty considered earlier cases on the warnings required when Gardaí demand specimens. She concluded that the authorities required the accused to be told that failure or refusal was an offence attracting penalties, but did not require a warning about disqualification following conviction. She also found that the Supreme Court decision in DPP v McCrea, concerning access to a solicitor, had no particular relevance to this case.
The High Court answered the District Judge’s question in the negative. It held that the accused had been warned of the offence and its penalties, and that the mistaken disqualification information did not make dismissal of the charge lawful. The ruling answered the question of law referred to it; it did not determine the charge itself.