The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by Aidan O’Mahony and ordered his drink-driving case to be reheard in the District Court after finding that the original trial judge failed to rule adequately on important defence arguments.
O’Mahony had been convicted at Naas District Court on January 26, 2000 of driving with alcohol in his blood above the statutory limit. He was fined £800 and disqualified from driving for 48 months. A Medical Bureau of Road Safety certificate recorded 221mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood in a sample taken at Naas Garda Station at 1.30am on June 23, 1999.
The case arose after Detective Garda LJ Kennedy observed O’Mahony driving a red Opel near the Naas dual carriageway. Kennedy said the car crossed red traffic lights, had a defective tail light and was driven erratically at speeds ranging from about 30mph to more than 90mph. He stopped the car by removing its ignition keys and accepted in evidence that this amounted to an arrest, but that he did not tell O’Mahony why he was being arrested.
Sergeant Gerard Goode arrived within seconds, formed the opinion that O’Mahony had committed a drink-driving offence and arrested him. The defence later argued that Kennedy’s arrest was unlawful because no reason was given and that the subsequent arrest by Goode was also invalid.
At trial, counsel sought a non-suit on those grounds. The District Court judge rejected the application without giving a clear ruling on the separate legal arguments. An application to state a case was later refused as frivolous, and the High Court subsequently refused judicial review.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the absence of a proper ruling was constitutionally defective. Mr Justice Francis D Murphy said a trial judge must indicate which arguments are accepted or rejected and, as far as practicable, why. The appeal was therefore allowed and the case remitted to the District Court for rehearing.