The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had not established the lawfulness of Michael Finn’s detention when Gardaí required him to provide breath specimens, after an unexplained observation period at a Garda station. The Court answered both questions in a case stated from the Circuit Court, including that evidence subsequently obtained was inadmissible.
The case arose from Finn’s arrest under section 49(8) of the Road Traffic Acts 1961–1994 at 11.25pm on 9 June 2000. He arrived at Dún Laoghaire Garda Station at 11.40pm. Garda Darren Coogan brought him to an interview room at 11.44pm and observed him for 20 minutes to ensure he consumed nothing. Coogan said he then explained the breath-test procedure and, at 12.07am on 10 June, required two breath specimens under section 13(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1994. Finn refused at 12.08am.
The Circuit Court judge found that nothing in particular prevented Gardaí from making the requirement when Finn arrived. The requirement was made about 27 minutes after his arrival, following an observation period said to be required by Garda guidelines. The judge referred two questions to the Supreme Court: whether Finn was lawfully detained when the requirement was made, and, if not, whether that made the later evidence inadmissible.
In a judgment delivered by Hardiman J, the Supreme Court said a person arrested for this statutory procedure was entitled to have it started as soon as reasonably possible. If the delay was challenged, the prosecution had to show that the time taken was no more than reasonable. Here, Coogan gave no reason for the interval beyond referring to guidelines, which were not produced. The Court said the evidence did not establish who issued them or why the wait was necessary.
The Court answered the first question in the negative: the evidence had not established that Finn’s detention was lawful when the breath specimens were required. It answered the second question yes, holding that lawful custody was a prerequisite to a lawful requirement and that the prosecution bore the burden of proving lawful custody. The Court stressed that its decision turned on the evidence in this case; it did not rule that a 20-minute wait could never be justified if supported by sufficient evidence in another case.