The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by three men facing drink-driving prosecutions, rejecting their challenge to the constitutionality of statutory breath-testing procedures under the Road Traffic Act 1994.
The appellants argued that because breath samples could not be retained or independently analysed, they were denied an effective way to challenge the readings. They said the law should allow a blood or urine sample to be taken as well, or instead. In each case, Gardaí had required breath specimens under section 13(1)(a); the legislation left the choice of testing method to Gardaí and did not give the men a right to demand an alternative sample.
The cases arose from arrests in 2000 and 2001. Ashley McGonnell’s statutory reading was 36 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, one unit above the 35-microgramme threshold. Oliver Quinlan’s was 68, and John Purcell’s was 57. For each man, the statutory reading reflected the lower of two breath readings, with a further 17.5 per cent administrative deduction.
The High Court had rejected the constitutional challenge after hearing expert evidence about the testing equipment. The Supreme Court said the appeal did not mount a real challenge to the trial judge’s factual findings. It accepted that a breath specimen cannot be split or preserved for later independent analysis, but concluded that the statutory safeguards and the accused’s ability to challenge the prosecution evidence maintained a reasonable balance.
The Court noted that the statutory certificate is rebuttable, rather than an automatic conviction. An accused may seek court-authorised inspection of the machine and relevant documentation, and may present evidence about how the apparatus operated at the time. The prosecution must also prove other elements of the alleged offence, including that the accused was driving in a public place and that a valid arrest and breath-testing requirement were made.
The Court held that the procedures were not disproportionate and did not impermissibly interfere with the right to a fair trial. It dismissed the appeal. The judgment concerns the constitutional challenge; the source states that the underlying District Court prosecutions were still pending.