A High Court judge has rejected a challenge by a man convicted of drink-driving on grounds relating to the labelling of a container in which his blood sample was held.
Mr Justice Geoghegan found that a District Court judge was correct in taking the view that, although Mr Patrick McGovern's name was not on an outer box in which the specimen bottle containing the blood sample of the defendant was held, once the specimen bottle itself was labelled that was sufficient to comply with the relevant statutory provisions.
He dismissed the appeal by Mr McGovern, of Dublin Road, Galway, against Judge Garavan's decision of March 19th, 1997.
Mr Justice Geoghegan noted that the certificate issued by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety (MBRS) in Mr McGovern's case included a comment by the chairman/director of the bureau: "No name on container - Patrick McGovern on specimen bottle."
In the District Court Mr McGovern's solicitor had asked the judge to dismiss the charge on the grounds that the prosecution had not established that the provisions of Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, had been complied with.
It was argued that the prescribed form referred to in the Act had not been completed by the designated doctor in compliance with the statutory provisions as the doctor did not attach a label to the "container" with the name of the person and the date of the taking of the sample.
It was submitted that a duly completed form was not submitted to the MBRS and, as a result, the certificate issued by the bureau in the case was inadmissible in evidence and the prosecution had failed to prove its case.
By way of case stated, the judge had asked the High Court to determine whether he was correct in law in holding that, as Mr McGovern's name was on the "specimen bottle" although not on the "container" in which the bottle was held, this was sufficient to meet the requirements of the 1994 Act in that the prescribed form had been duly completed by the designated doctor.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said the judge had evidence before him, which was not rebutted, that the doctor in the case had divided Mr McGovern's blood specimen into two parts, had placed each part in a container which he had sealed and had labelled each container with the name of the person and the date. He said the certificate from the MBRS relating to the defendant made it clear that the defendant's name was on the specimen bottle itself and that there was no name on what the certifier had described as the "container". There was no dispute that what the certifier referred to as a "container" was the outer box in which the specimen bottle was placed.
If, as appeared to be the case, the specimen bottle itself was labelled, there was proper compliance with the 1994 Act, the judge found. He also noted the MBRS certificate was itself sufficient evidence of any facts shown in it until the contrary was shown.
The judge, dismissing the appeal, awarded costs against Mr McGovern.