Ireland Supreme Court upholds quashing of drink-driving conviction over garda signing error
A man was over the legal alcohol limit within three hours of driving, with a breath reading above 22 micrograms per 100 millilitres. He was convicted in the District Court of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to section 4(a) and (5) of the 2010 Road Traffic Act, but the prosecuting garda had signed two statutory statements immediately after he signed them rather than before him. A 2014 Supreme Court decision held the statements inadmissible, and the conviction was quashed. The DPP appealed, and the Supreme Court, by a five-to-two split, dismissed the appeal in a ruling reported on 30 July 2024. The sources give no county, incident date, or name, age or nationality for the man.
- Reported
- Arrested
- Charged
- In court
- Verdict
- Sentenced
Key facts
consolidated from all reports- What happened
- A man was found to have more than 22 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath within three hours of driving.
- Cause
- The prosecuting garda signed two statutory statements immediately after the accused signed them, not before him, as the 2010 Act requires.
- Charges
- The man was convicted in the District Court of driving under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to section 4(a) and (5) of the 2010 Road Traffic Act.
- In court
- A 2014 Supreme Court oral decision held that the statements were not admissible evidence because of the signing error.
- The conviction was quashed, and the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Supreme Court.
- The DPP's appeal failed because the 2014 Supreme Court decision was binding in this case.
- The Supreme Court split five to two, with three judges agreeing with the 2014 decision.
- Ms Justice Iseult O'Malley said the sequencing error had absolutely no effect on the defendant's right to a fair trial.
- Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, supported by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, dissented and held that the 2014 judgment was clearly wrong.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the DPP's appeal, so the quashing of the conviction stands.
- Other details
- The sources give no county, incident date or identity for the accused.
- Sentence
- No sentence is reported in the sources.
11 statements extracted from the articles
- whatWithin three hours of driving, the man exceeded the legal maximum of 22 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. (irishtimes.com)
- whatThe garda did not sign the statements before the accused, as the 2010 Act requires. (irishtimes.com)
- causeThe prosecuting garda signed two statutory statements immediately after the accused signed them, not before him. (irishtimes.com)
- chargeThe man was convicted in the District Court of driving under the influence of an intoxicant contrary to section 4(a) and (5) of the 2010 Road Traffic Act. (irishtimes.com)
- courtThe Supreme Court held in a majority ruling that the conviction was correctly overturned. (irishtimes.com)
- courtThe DPP's appeal failed because a 2014 Supreme Court decision was binding in this case. (irishtimes.com)
- courtThe court split five to two, with three judges agreeing with the 2014 oral decision. (irishtimes.com)
- courtThe 2014 decision held that the statements were not admissible evidence because of the error. (irishtimes.com)
- courtMs Justice Iseult O'Malley said the sequencing error had absolutely no effect on the defendant's right to a fair trial. (irishtimes.com)
- courtMr Justice Gerard Hogan, supported by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, dissented and held that the 2014 judgment was clearly wrong. (irishtimes.com)
- courtThe Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. (irishtimes.com)
The reporting
newest first- 30 Jul2024Drink driving conviction correctly quashed due to garda’s technical error, Supreme Court rules
Reports the Supreme Court majority ruling dismissing the DPP's appeal against the quashing of the conviction. The article gives no county, incident date or identity for the accused.
convicted, male