The High Court has ruled that a Supreme Court decision on handcuffing did not require the dismissal of two Road Traffic Act charges against Piotr Wierowski. The case was referred by a District Court judge, who asked whether the charges had to be dismissed or whether she could exercise discretion.
The charges arose from an incident on 29 June 2014. The prosecution alleged that, after being arrested at Tipperary Garda Station, Mr Wierowski failed to provide breath specimens and failed to comply with a request to provide a blood or urine specimen. Those allegations were not determined in the High Court judgment.
Evidence before the District Court was that gardaí stopped a blue Opel Corsa at a checkpoint after receiving a report it had been driven erratically. Garda Anthony O’Brien said the car nearly collided with another vehicle at the checkpoint. He described Mr Wierowski’s speech as slurred, said he smelled of alcohol and testified that Mr Wierowski could not stand without assistance. He arrested him on suspicion of drink driving and handcuffed him.
Under cross-examination, Garda O’Brien agreed that Mr Wierowski was not aggressive and had not tried to flee. He said he used handcuffs because he was concerned about safety while the car was moved and the accused transported, and because he did not know Mr Wierowski’s usual demeanour and considered him physically larger than the two gardaí present.
The High Court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in DPP v Cullen, which addressed whether a general practice of handcuffing drivers who behaved peacefully could invalidate the subsequent statutory procedure for obtaining a breath specimen. The High Court said Cullen did not bind the District Court judge to dismiss the charges. It said the judge could consider the circumstances and decide whether the handcuffs were an appropriate use of force; if she found they were, she was entitled to convict.
The court also held that the later Supreme Court decision in DPP v J.C. did not arise in this case. It said the discretion to admit evidence affected by irregularity or illegality was not relevant to the issue before it. The case stated addressed the legal question about the arrest and handcuffing; the High Court did not determine guilt or innocence.