Wicklow woman’s drink-driving case struck out despite test reading more than three times legal limit
The Wicklow PeopleA Wicklow woman has had a drink-driving charge struck out, despite a urine sample showing an alcohol concentration more than three times the legal limit.
Deirdre Browne (47), with an address at Roundhill, Monastery, Wicklow, appeared for a hearing at a sitting of Bray District Court charged with drink-driving.
Garda Conor Byrne, formerly of Bray Garda Station, testified that on May 15, 2023, he was conducting a checkpoint on the Dargle Road, when he stopped the accused driving a black 2017 Tesla.
He told the court that he “made a requirement” of Ms Browne to blow into a Trager breathalyser.
It was alleged that Ms Browne failed to give a sample on two occasions, before gardaí explained that it was a criminal offence if she failed to do so.
The court was told that on the second occasion, it was “clear” that Ms Browne “pretended to blow air”.
She was arrested for failing to provide a sample before being conveyed to Bray Garda Station.
A doctor was called and arrived an hour later. Ms Browne was also informed that it was a criminal offence not to give a blood or urine sample.
Garda Byrne said that the defendant provided a urine sample, which the doctor sealed in the container and marked with her name and the time the sample was provided.
The Medical Bureau of Road Safety later returned the results, which showed Ms Browne had an alcohol concentration of 217 milligrammes per 100 millilitres of urine, more than three times the legal limit.
During cross-examination, counsel for the defendant, David Staunton, questioned if a female officer was present when his client was giving a sample.
The testifying garda explained that in the doctor’s room at Bray Garda Station there is a “privacy area” for detainees to use when giving a sample.
Mr Staunton asked Judge Mary McAveety to direct that the matter be struck out, arguing that part of the procedure involving the doctor had not been carried out correctly.
He referred to case law from a Supreme Court judgment, which he argued established that where a doctor is not present to give evidence, there is no “essential proof” of the charge.
Judge Mary McAveety struck out the matter after agreeing with the defence counsel’s application.