The Court of Appeal ruled that Geoffrey Laing’s detention in a cell at Ballina Garda Station while awaiting a doctor for a blood sample was lawful. It answered “no” to the question of whether his detention was unlawful, so the separate question about the admissibility of evidence did not arise.
The appeal arose from a case stated by Judge Mary Devins of Ballina District Court after a prosecution under the Road Traffic Act 2010. The charge alleged that Laing drove with an alcohol concentration above the statutory limit. The District Court proceedings were adjourned while Judge Devins sought the High Court’s opinion on the legality of the detention and the effect on evidence obtained afterwards. The High Court answered that the detention was not unlawful. Laing appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.
The prosecution case was that Laing had been driving the vehicle that rear-ended another car in a collision on Tolan Street, Ballina, on 21 September 2013. Garda Caroline Clarke said she observed that Laing’s eyes were bleary, his speech slurred and there was a strong smell of alcohol. She said he failed a roadside breath test and arrested him on suspicion of an offence under the Act.
At the station, Clarke introduced Laing to the member in charge, Garda Seán Haugh, who entered his details in the custody record and gave him information about his rights. Haugh testified that he placed Laing in a cell at 4.10pm while they waited for a doctor, who arrived at 4.45pm. Haugh said this was routine practice and allowed him to carry out other duties. A blood sample was taken and sent for analysis. The source says a certificate later recorded a reading of 253mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath.
Laing’s counsel argued that routinely placing him in a cell for Garda convenience was unlawful, particularly where he presented no safety or security risk. The prosecution submitted that detention at the station was necessary while a sample was obtained and that a cell was a place of detention, not an application of unreasonable force.
The Court of Appeal distinguished this case from earlier cases concerning routine handcuffing and detention for administrative convenience. Laing had already been arrested and was required to remain in custody pending the doctor’s arrival. The court held that placing him in a cell in those circumstances was understandable and that his detention was lawful. It therefore upheld the High Court’s answer to the first question. It made no ruling on the admissibility of the later evidence, because that question did not arise.