By Owen Reid
The Court of Appeal has upheld a ruling that Gardaí did not have to explain the different testing consequences of choosing blood rather than urine before Joseph Tobin provided a sample following his arrest in Celbridge.
Tobin had been convicted in the District Court of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent that he was incapable of properly controlling a vehicle. The offence arose from events at Supervalu on Dublin Road, Celbridge, on March 21, 2018.
Garda Daniel Lyons told the District Court that Tobin's vehicle was driven erratically and that Tobin appeared unsteady, had slurred speech and bleary eyes. A preliminary breath test was positive and Tobin admitted consuming two drinks before driving.
He was arrested and taken to Leixlip Garda Station. After an evidential breath-testing machine malfunctioned, Tobin was required to provide either blood or urine and chose urine. Analysis later showed 47mg of alcohol per 100ml of urine, below the statutory alcohol limit, but cannabinoids were also detected.
Tobin argued that Gardaí should have explained that, unlike blood, urine would not be analysed for the concentration of certain drugs. He said that distinction potentially affected which Road Traffic Act offence could be prosecuted and the length of any driving disqualification.
The District Court rejected his argument, convicted him, fined him €300 and imposed the mandatory four-year disqualification. A case was then stated to the High Court, which ruled against him on the fair-procedures issue.
Mr Justice Anthony Collins, delivering the Court of Appeal judgment, agreed. He held that existing cases require warnings where a person risks committing an offence by refusing a statutory demand, or losing a constitutionally protected defence through action or inaction. Choosing urine rather than blood did neither.
The court also noted that Tobin had been informed of his right to legal advice but did not exercise it, and had shown no actual prejudice from the absence of the proposed warning.
The appeal was dismissed and the High Court ruling affirmed, apart from its answer to a third question which the parties agreed no longer required determination.