The Supreme Court has ruled that Simon Mangan lawfully remained under an obligation to provide a blood sample after he was unable to give a urine specimen following his arrest near Swords.
The case arose from an incident shortly after midnight on April 11, 1996. Garda Christine Dowling said she saw a car being driven erratically on the Dublin Road in Swords and formed the view that Mangan was incapable of proper control because of an intoxicant. He was arrested and brought to Swords Garda Station.
At 1.05am, Garda Dowling required him to permit a designated doctor to take blood or, at his option, to provide urine. She also explained that failure to comply was an offence and outlined the penalties. Mangan chose urine and made three attempts to provide a specimen but was unable to do so.
At 1.48am, Garda Dowling again required him to provide a blood specimen. He refused. Mangan was subsequently convicted in the District Court of refusing to comply and appealed to the Circuit Court, which referred three legal questions to the Supreme Court.
Mangan argued that the first requirement was defective because Garda Dowling referred to section 13(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act without expressly saying “1994”. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. Chief Justice Keane held that the legal basis and substance of the requirement had been sufficiently identified and that omission of the year was immaterial.
The court also rejected Mangan’s argument that the later blood requirement was unlawful. It held that while he was genuinely attempting to provide urine, his obligation to provide blood was temporarily suspended. Once it became clear that he could not provide urine within a reasonable time, the original obligation to permit a blood sample revived.
The Supreme Court answered all three questions in favour of the prosecution.