The Supreme Court has ruled that a person required to provide breath specimens at a Garda station must follow the manner of compliance indicated by a Garda member. A failure to do so can amount to an offence under section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 1994, even if some breath enters the testing apparatus.
The ruling arose from a case stated by a Circuit Court judge during Bridget Moorehouse’s appeal against a District Court conviction. Moorehouse had been charged after being arrested on suspicion of drink-driving and required to provide two breath specimens at Dún Laoghaire Garda Station on 28 December 2001.
According to the evidence set out in the case stated, Garda Francis Byrne instructed Moorehouse to inhale deeply, seal her lips around the mouthpiece and blow steadily into the apparatus. She made several attempts but did not seal her lips around the mouthpiece or provide complete specimens. Byrne agreed in cross-examination that she had exhaled at least twice, but the samples were insufficient for the apparatus to determine the alcohol concentration.
The Circuit Court asked the Supreme Court whether section 13 made it an offence to fail to comply with the requirement in the manner indicated by the Garda member. It also asked whether exhaling into the apparatus, without providing complete specimens, was sufficient compliance to provide a defence. The Supreme Court answered the first question “in the affirmative”; it said the second question therefore did not arise.
Delivering judgment on 28 July 2005, Chief Justice Murray said the statutory requirement included the manner of providing the specimens indicated by the Garda member. The Court held that the conduct described in the case stated was capable of being found to constitute a refusal or failure to comply. Whether Moorehouse had in fact committed that offence remained a question of fact for the trial judge.
The judgment addressed the interpretation of section 13, not the ultimate outcome of Moorehouse’s appeal or her guilt. The source does not state what happened in the Circuit Court after the Supreme Court answered the legal question.