‘Remarkable’ that Louth driver sitting in court after her car went into wall - Judge
A court has found that a 24-year-old motorist was unlawfully detained following a mid-afternoon collision when her car went into a wall.
Niamh McAvoy was accompanied by a garda as she was brought to hospital following the single vehicle incident last year, the district court heard.
The defendant, of Lisroland View, Knockbridge, Co. Louth, contested a summons which alleged that she refused to provide a sample at Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital, on February 9, 2025.
Judge Nicola Andrews said that there was “no justification” for the officer to go into the back of the ambulance. He could have followed.
That a very serious accident occurred was not in doubt.
“That she is sitting in court is remarkable in itself. She should be thankful that she is sitting there and nobody else was on the receiving end of her driving,” the judge continued.
Det Gda Jack Farrell testified that at 2.30pm on Februay 2, 2025, he was alerted to a single vehicle road traffic collision at Whitecross, Louth Village.
At the scene he saw a silver Mini Cooper extensively damaged to the front. Its airbags had been deployed. It had crashed against a wall and was on the road.
It was a heavy impact. The car was ultimately written off.
A female was in the back of an ambulance.
Det Gda Farrell said that he cautioned this person, the accused, who said that she had been travelling from Knockbridge towards Louth Village when she lost control of the car. The clutch had recently been fixed and she thought it may have given way.
The witness continued that her responses were slow. Her eyes were glassy and speech slurred as she lay on a stretcher in the back of the ambulance.
He formed his opinion (that an offence had been committed). He accompanied Ms McAvoy to the Drogheda hospital, arriving at 3.30pm.
Det Gda Farrell said that the treating doctor told him the defendant was fit to provide a blood or urine sample.
At 4.07pm he made a requirement for her to provide urine or at her option blood to another doctor, outlining the penalties for failing to do so.
The witness said the woman refused, saying, “I don’t like that and I’m not doing that.”
The officer said that he again made the request and that she repeated what she had said, “screaming hysterically”.
He noted her responses and left the hospital.
Det Gda Farrell told defence counsel Martin Dully, instructed by solicitor Peter Lavery, that he got permission from a paramedic to enter the ambulance.
Ms McAvoy complained of lower back pain. He didn’t recall an “obvious” injury to her nose.
It was correct that there was no reference in his notebook to a caution being administered.
He denied not following Judges’ Rules “from beginning to end”.
Mr Dully put it to the garda that what he did was “absolutely inconsistent” with somebody not under arrest.
The court heard that there was no statement from the doctor who gave permission for a sample, nor were they present.
Det Gda Farrell agreed that Niamh McAvoy was in “a state of extreme distress” and was “in a bed with the curtains pulled around” when the request for a sample was made.
“At no point did she indicate she was willing to provide a sample,” he said, adding that arrangements would have been made to make that (provide a sample) easier for her, but he didn’t get that far.
He denied not allowing the accused’s parents speak to her when they arrived.
He said Mrs McAvoy spoke to her daughter and “no progress was made”. Niamh McAvoy was not under arrest.
Mr Dully said it was “extraordinarily unfair” how his client was treated.
The officer replied, “That’s not correct”.
Counsel outlined a number of grounds for dismissal, submitting that it was not a lawful demand in the first place for a specimen. It should have been “blood first” with an option to provide urine.
Mr Dully said that Judges’ Rules (administrative guidelines for dealing with suspects) had been broken from beginning to end.
He continued that the garda decided to accompany the woman in the ambulance to ensure she took “nil by mouth” when she was still at liberty.
“How is that consistent with a person not under arrest?”
Garda Inspector Martina Gallagher said that the defendant was not interviewed in the back of the ambulance.
A statement was not required from the doctor at the hospital.
A female officer would have been obtained (for taking a sample) but Ms McAvoy “refused point blank” to provide one.
The inspector didn’t believe any of her rights had been infringed.
Judge Andrews said her difficulty was that no paramedics were present to give evidence.
There was no justification for the garda to go into the back of the ambulance. He could have followed the ambulance.
The nature of the demand (for a sample) was not the correct way around. The defendant was detained at the time of that demand.
Judge Andrews continued that it was a very serious accident was not in doubt. The driver went into a wall.
“That she is sitting in court is remarkable in itself.
“In this case I’m not satisfied there is evidence of a lawful demand being made. She was unlawfully detained. A lawful demand could not have been made.”
Judge Andrews added it was a “troubling matter”.
Ms McAvoy should be thankful that she was sitting there and that “nobody else was on the receiving end of her driving on that date”.
The judge urged that she would reflect on what happened.