The High Court has upheld the dismissal of a drink-driving charge against Ronald Dardis, ruling that the District Court was correct in finding a second 20-minute observation period before a breath test was unjustified.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the judgment on 2 February 2015 in a case stated by District Court Judge Bryan Smyth. The Director of Public Prosecutions had asked the High Court to decide whether the second observation period was justified and whether the charge had been correctly dismissed.
The charge alleged that Mr Dardis drove on De Selby Rise, Tallaght, on 8 March 2014 while subject to the lower alcohol limit for a learner permit. The District Court found that Garda Shay Kilbride saw him driving and arrested him after observing signs of intoxication. At Terenure Garda Station, a breath analysis recorded 64 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.
Garda Kilbride began a 20-minute observation period before the breath test. Near its end, he briefly looked away from Mr Dardis. He also discovered that the Evidenzer machine was in use. The Garda restarted the observation period, citing both issues. The District Court accepted that the first period was reasonably necessary for reliable testing, but found that the Garda should have checked the machine’s availability beforehand. It also found that the momentary lapse, while the Garda remained in the room, did not create a reasonable concern that Mr Dardis had taken something by mouth.
The District Court dismissed the case, finding the additional detention unjustified. The DPP then sought the High Court’s opinion on the legal questions.
Mr Justice Hedigan said the case-stated procedure was limited to correcting errors of law; it could not be used to challenge a trial judge’s assessment of the evidence simply because a party disagreed with it. Whether the additional detention was reasonable and necessary was for the District Court judge to determine on the evidence.
The High Court answered yes to both questions: the District Court was correct in law to find the second observation period unjustified and to dismiss the charge. The judgment did not reverse the dismissal.