The Court of Appeal has ruled that a Garda may require an arrested person to provide a blood specimen for a suspected drug-driving offence after carrying out any one of three tests specified in the Road Traffic Act 2010.
The ruling came in a consultative case stated from Longford Circuit Court, where Patrick Clyne was appealing a District Court conviction. The Circuit Court asked whether section 13B(1) of the 2010 Act, as amended in 2016, required a Garda to carry out more than one of the listed tests before requiring a blood specimen.
The case arose from a checkpoint at Market Street, Granard, on 29 January 2018. Garda evidence before the Circuit Court was that Clyne’s van approached slowly after braking suddenly, and that he appeared nervous, had dilated pupils and seemed to be chewing. A roadside oral fluid test was positive for cocaine. He was arrested and later permitted a doctor to take a blood specimen at Longford Garda Station.
Certificates from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety recorded cocaine and benzoylecgonine in the specimen. Clyne was convicted at Longford District Court on 5 March 2019 of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant. He was fined €250, faced three months’ imprisonment or five days in default of payment, and was disqualified from driving for one year. The judgment says his licence was endorsed.
On appeal, Clyne’s counsel argued that the wording of section 13B(1) should be read to require a preliminary oral fluid test together with an impairment test or a further oral fluid test. The prosecution argued that the statutory list was disjunctive: any one test would suffice.
Delivering judgment on 30 September 2020, Ms Justice Ní Raifeartaigh said the subsection was unambiguous under ordinary English syntax and customary legislative punctuation. The listed tests—preliminary oral fluid testing, impairment testing, or an oral fluid test under section 13A—were alternatives. The court said it was therefore unnecessary to apply other interpretive rules, including strict construction of penal statutes or a purposive approach.
The court also said that constitutional and European Convention arguments were not for determination in this case-stated proceeding. It noted that Clyne’s own case involved a positive preliminary oral fluid test, so the argument about requiring a blood sample solely on the basis of an impairment assessment concerned a hypothetical situation.
The Court of Appeal answered “Yes” to the Circuit Court’s question. The judgment determined the statutory interpretation question; it did not decide a constitutional challenge.