The High Court has refused an application for judicial review seeking to quash a Circuit Court decision upholding convictions for failing to provide a sample and dangerous driving. The court said the application had procedural deficiencies that were not adequately explained and, having considered the merits, refused relief.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty on 3 July 2020, concerned an incident in Drogheda. The applicant was seen driving erratically on Laurence Street at about 3.30am. During a subsequent pursuit, his vehicle reached speeds of up to 220km/h, the judgment says. He was arrested at 4.10am on suspicion of drink driving and brought to a garda station.
The breath-testing apparatus, known as the Evidenzer, was locked away and its key could not be found. A doctor was contacted at 5.35am, said he would arrive five minutes later, and arrived at 6.30am. The applicant refused to provide blood or urine samples. He was charged with failing to provide a sample and dangerous driving.
The District Court convicted him. On appeal, the Circuit Court also convicted him, imposed a €100 fine for each offence and disqualified him from driving for six years for each. The disqualification was stayed until 19 May 2019.
In the High Court, the applicant argued that the doctor’s delay meant evidence related to the sample offence was obtained while he was unlawfully detained and should be excluded. The judge distinguished that evidence from the dangerous-driving evidence, which came from the pursuing garda’s observations of the driving and did not depend on the lawfulness of the later detention. The dangerous-driving argument had also not been raised in the Circuit Court.
The court identified two procedural problems: the applicant obtained leave more than five months after the Circuit Court order, without an affidavit explaining the delay, and did not lodge a copy of that order before the hearing. The order was sent to the registrar after the hearing, but no affidavit explained its earlier absence. The judgment records explanations including a change of solicitor, personal difficulties affecting the former solicitor and a misunderstanding about which order had to be provided; the court found them insufficiently supported.
Justice Gearty concluded that the applicant had no case in respect of the dangerous-driving conviction and an extremely weak substantive claim in respect of the sample offence. Because the same six-year disqualification applied to both convictions, success on the first would not remove the penalty attached to the second. The court refused certiorari on the preliminary grounds, after considering the overall merits.