High Court throws out intoxilyser challenge

The hopes of thousands of suspected drunk drivers were dashed toeday when the High Court threw out a legal challenge to the validity…

The hopes of thousands of suspected drunk drivers were dashed toeday when the High Court threw out a legal challenge to the validity of the intoxilyser , the new high-technology breath test.

A test case based on constitutional and fair procedures issues had been taken by three motorists alleged to have failed intoxilyser readings Mr Oliver Quinlan, Mr John Purcell and Ms Ashley Mc Gonnell.

Mr Justice Liam Mc Kechnie held that the omission in legislation of not providing an option to suspects to give a sample of blood instead of a specimen of breath was not fatal to the statutory provisions governing the use by gardai of the new technology.

"The plaintiffs constitutional rights and rights of fair procedures have not been infringed," he said.

READ MORE

Mr Justice Mc Kechnie, said he believed the new breath test regime put in place by the Oireachtas provided adequate representation of and protection for the rights of suspected drink drivers.

The judge said that given the particular evidence in the case before him and notwithstanding the fact that the apparatus was not infallible nonetheless there were sufficient internal safeguards and technological mechanisms within it as to ensure that readings specified the actual level of concentration of alcohol in the breath of any arrested person.

Mr Justice Mc Kechnie said that in addition to these safeguards all of the other requirements to ground a successful prosecution had to be put in place by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

"This regime does not equate with an automatic conviction," he said.

Awarding costs, running into tens of thousands against the plaintiffs, Mr Justice Mc Kecchnie said it was difficullt to say they were acting on behalf of the public or in the public interest.

He could not see any compelling reason as to why the normal rule of costs following the event should not prevail.

Mr Hogan was granted a stay on the order to facilitate consideration of an appeal on the question of legal costs to the Supreme Court.

No question of an appeal on the judge's ruling was mentioned in court.