The High Court refused an application by Phelim Doyle to quash his conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant, ruling that an appeal was the appropriate remedy and that his application was excessively delayed.
Doyle had been convicted in the District Court on 14 October 2008 under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. He was disqualified from driving for four years and fined €2,500. He later sought judicial review, arguing that the trial was fundamentally unfair and that the evidence did not establish that any intoxication left him incapable of having proper control of his vehicle.
The case arose after Garda Seamus O’Brien stopped Doyle at Ballinabarney, Rathnew, County Wicklow, on 2 November 2007. O’Brien said he had seen Doyle’s car skid around a roundabout and travel at speed. He described Doyle as showing signs of intoxication, including unusually large irises and slow movement, and said he smelled cannabis from the vehicle. A search found a cannabis grinder with traces of what appeared to be cannabis. O’Brien said Doyle admitted owning it and having used cannabis within the previous 24 hours. A blood test later returned a negative result for alcohol and a positive result for cannabis.
Doyle’s solicitor argued at trial that the prosecution had not shown the required degree of impairment and that Doyle had been questioned without a caution. He also challenged the legal basis for the arrest: O’Brien’s proposed evidence referred to an arrest under one statutory provision, while his District Court evidence referred to another. The judge convicted Doyle. The solicitor’s account of the judge’s remarks was that the judge considered a conviction must follow when drugs were found in a person’s system. In the High Court, O’Brien and the solicitor gave differing accounts of parts of the District Court hearing.
The High Court did not decide whether the District Court had correctly assessed the evidence. President Kearns said Doyle’s complaints concerned the sufficiency of the evidence and should have been pursued by appeal, rather than judicial review, absent fundamental unfairness or impropriety in the hearing as a whole. The court said that even if the District Court judge had misstated the legal test, that would not make judicial review appropriate on the case presented.
The court also found the delay excessive. The conviction order was made on 14 October 2008, while leave to seek judicial review was granted on 23 February 2009. The affidavits filed for Doyle did not explain the delay, the judgment said. The court refused the relief sought, adding that neither certiorari nor mandamus was appropriate in the circumstances. It made no determination on the underlying sufficiency of the evidence.