The Court of Appeal has ruled that a District Court judge was not correct in law to convict Philip Casserly of failing to comply with a blood-or-urine specimen requirement at Longford Garda Station in September 2020.
The appeal concerned the process under section 12(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. Garda Allan Doherty required Casserly to permit a designated doctor to take a blood sample or, at his option, provide a urine sample. Casserly chose urine, saying he disliked needles, and also asked to provide a breath sample. Garda Doherty told him the station’s Evidenzer IRL apparatus was out of order.
According to facts found by the District Court, Casserly had until about 3.33am to provide urine but did not do so. He was placed in a cell. At 3.46am, before the doctor left, Garda Doherty again required a urine sample and outlined penalties for failing to provide one. Casserly again did not provide a sample and was released from custody at 3.49am without charge.
Casserly argued that, once he failed to provide urine, the obligation to permit a blood sample—temporarily in abeyance while he exercised the urine option—revived. He submitted that Garda Doherty had to make that requirement again, and that without it the offence was not proved. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the original explanation and repeated warnings were sufficient, and that refusal could be inferred from Casserly’s conduct.
In a judgment delivered on 10 October 2024, Ms Justice Tara Burns said the appellant had been adequately informed of the original requirement and its consequences. But she disagreed with the High Court’s conclusion that no further step was needed after the failed urine attempt and that Casserly alone had to indicate readiness to provide blood.
The Court of Appeal said a renewed blood-sample requirement was needed to provide a fair and certain process. It also found that no blood sample was requested after the failed urine attempt. The later demand for urine, accompanied by a warning of penalties, was unlawful and added uncertainty: the court said failure to provide urine was not itself an offence. It rejected proposed timings for an inferred blood refusal because they followed that demand or otherwise left the process uncertain.
The court answered the Case Stated by finding that the District Court judge was not correct in law to convict. The judgment resolved the question of law in the appeal; it did not record a new trial or specify any further order.