The High Court has ruled that Gardaí were not required to explain the possible evidential consequences of choosing a urine sample rather than a blood sample after arrest under road traffic laws. It said the member had to explain that cooperation was required by law and that refusing or failing to provide a sample was a criminal offence.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Alexander Owens on 31 March 2023, arose from Joseph Tobin’s appeal by way of case stated against a District Court conviction. Tobin was convicted on 3 December 2020 of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent that he was incapable of having proper control of a vehicle, contrary to section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2010.
The case stated asked whether fair procedures had been afforded when the consequences of choosing between blood and urine were not explained, whether Gardaí had to explain those consequences, and whether the District Court judge was correct in law to convict. The High Court answered the first question “yes” and the second “no”. It said Tobin had been advised of his right to consult a solicitor before sampling and did not use it. Gardaí did not have to give legal advice or warn how test results might be used in a prosecution.
Tobin had been required to provide a breath sample at Leixlip Garda Station, but the apparatus did not function properly. He later chose to provide urine instead of blood. A Medical Bureau of Road Safety certificate recorded alcohol at 47mg per 100ml of urine, below the statutory threshold for the relevant “over the limit” offence. A later certificate recorded “CANNABINOIDS CLASS” drugs but did not identify or quantify them. The judgment noted that the certificate had very little evidential value and, without further expert interpretation, did not establish when any drugs were consumed or whether they affected driving ability.
The court said a sample taken under the statutory process could be tested for drugs and alcohol, and that results could be used where relevant in proceedings under the Road Traffic Acts. It also said the law did not require Gardaí to explain that blood testing could support a specific offence involving scheduled drugs, while a urine result could not support that offence.
On the third question, the High Court said that if it concerned only the warning and legal-advice issues, the answer was “yes”. If it asked whether the evidence was sufficient to convict, that depended on whether the District Court judge was persuaded by evidence apart from the Bureau certificate about “CANNABINOIDS CLASS” drugs. If not, the proper verdict was an acquittal. The judgment therefore did not establish from the stated material whether the conviction rested on other evidence.