The Court of Appeal has overturned a High Court ruling which upheld the dismissal of an intoxicated-driving charge against Ronald Dardis over an additional 20-minute observation period at Terenure Garda station.
Dardis was arrested on 8 March 2014 and brought to the station. Just over an hour later, he provided breath samples showing 64 micrograms of alcohol per 100ml of breath.
Before breath testing, Garda practice required a 20-minute observation period to ensure a person consumed nothing by mouth, protecting the accuracy of the sample. Garda Shay Kilbride began that period at 12.45am. Near its end, he briefly looked away. He had also discovered that the Evidenzer machine was being used by someone else. He therefore began a fresh 20-minute period at 1.12am.
District Judge Bryan Smyth held that the second period was unjustified. He considered that the Garda should have checked whether the machine was available before beginning the first observation period and that momentarily looking away did not reasonably suggest Dardis had consumed anything. He dismissed the charge.
On a case stated, the High Court upheld that decision, treating the issue as a factual determination open to the District Judge.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. It held that whether the established facts made the continued detention unlawful was a question of law. Dardis had been properly arrested and remained lawfully at the station while awaiting an available machine.
The court found that he was not detained any longer than the machine's availability required. Even if the extra observation period were viewed as additional detention, the reasons given were rational and adequately explained it.
Describing the additional 20 minutes as a routine or modest human delay and essentially minimal, the court allowed the DPP's appeal. It answered both questions in the case stated in the negative, holding that the second observation period was not unjustified and that the charge should not have been dismissed on that basis.