The High Court has upheld a District Court conviction of Philip Casserly for failing to comply with a requirement to provide a blood or urine specimen after his arrest. It ruled that Gardaí did not have to repeat warnings they had given him about the requirement and its penalties.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin delivered the judgment on 31 March 2023 in a case stated appeal on a point of law. The question was whether the District Court judge was correct in law to convict Casserly under section 12(3) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. The High Court was not hearing a new appeal on the merits or reconsidering the District Court’s factual findings.
The case stated recorded that Casserly was arrested in Longford in the early hours of 12 September 2020 and brought to Longford Garda Station. Because the station’s breath-testing apparatus was out of order, a designated doctor attended. At 3.15am, Garda Alan Doherty required Casserly to permit a blood specimen or, at his option, provide urine. The District Court judge found that Doherty explained the obligation and the consequences of refusing or failing to comply.
Casserly chose urine, citing a dislike of needles, and also asked to provide a breath specimen. He was told the apparatus was unavailable and was given an opportunity to provide urine. The judge found that he did not provide a specimen. He was taken from a cell at 3.46am and again failed to provide urine; he left the station at 3.49am without providing blood.
Casserly argued that after he failed to provide urine, Gardaí had to alert him that the obligation to permit a blood specimen had revived. The prosecution argued that no fresh warning was required. Mr Justice Heslin held that the initial requirement and warnings covered both alternatives and the consequences of non-compliance. The obligation to permit blood was in abeyance while Casserly had a reasonable opportunity to provide urine; it revived when he did not provide it. The judge found no legal or constitutional duty to repeat the warnings, and said Casserly remained free to change his mind and permit a blood specimen before leaving.
The High Court answered the case stated question in the affirmative, holding that the District Court judge was correct in law to convict. The District Court had imposed a €400 fine and a four-year driving disqualification. The High Court judgment directed the parties to correspond about the form of order, including costs, and provided for written submissions if they could not agree. It did not determine those remaining matters in the judgment.