By Owen Reid
The Supreme Court has ruled that a driver arrested on suspicion of drink-driving is not entitled to a fixed or extended period in which to provide a urine sample before being required to permit a blood specimen.
The case arose after Peadar Malone was stopped at Grange End, Dunshaughlin, Co Meath, shortly after midnight on 19 January 2003. Garda Niall O'Sullivan said Malone smelled strongly of alcohol, had slurred speech and was unsteady on his feet. He was arrested and taken to Ashbourne Garda Station.
At the station, Malone chose the statutory option of providing urine rather than allowing a doctor to take blood. He was brought to the toilet shortly before 1am but had not provided a specimen by 1.07am. After asking for another minute, he was given another opportunity. No specimen had been produced by 1.15am.
At 1.16am Garda O'Sullivan required Malone to permit a blood sample. Malone replied that he would provide urine later. The garda treated that as a refusal.
On appeal from the District Court, the Circuit Court judge considered that Malone had not been given a reasonable amount of time and stated questions of law for the Supreme Court.
Mr Justice Kearns said the legislation should be operated reasonably but did not create an entitlement to a particular waiting period. A person choosing urine must be supplied with the necessary container, brought to an appropriate place and allowed the short period normally required to perform the function.
If no sample is actually provided, the obligation to permit blood to be taken revives immediately. The court stressed that the statutory procedure must be completed within three hours of driving and should not be interpreted in a way that permits delay to defeat that requirement.
The Supreme Court therefore answered the Circuit Court's first question in the negative. The second question, concerning dismissal of the charge, did not arise.