A large number of drink-driving cases may have been held up because of an alleged delay in a challenge by a Northern Ireland man to the State's refusal to give him documents in relation to what was described as a faulty batch of breathalysers, the High Court was told yesterday.
In judicial review proceedings, Mr Sterling Manson, a veterinary surgeon, of Strabane Road, Castlederg, Co Tyrone, is seeking an order preventing his prosecution on charges of drink-driving and dangerous driving of a vehicle at Coolyslin, Castlefin, Co Donegal, on October 8th, 1995, until the State produces to him all documents, written records and correspondence in relation to breath-testing equipment used before and after the introduction of the 1994 Road Traffic Act.
Mr Manson also wants documents about breath, blood and urine tests, the testing of equipment used in these and copies of regulations and other documents.
According to an affidavit of Supt Kevin Lennon, Mr Manson was arrested at 2.28 a.m. at Coolyslin on October 8th, 1995, and taken to Lifford Garda station where a doctor was called and a urine sample was taken. Subsequent analysis by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety of the sample showed it contained a concentration of 228 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of urine.
The prosecution of Mr Manson before Letterkenny District Court is on hold pending the outcome of the proceedings taken by him against District Judge John O'Donnell, the DPP and the Director of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety.
Yesterday Mr Manson's counsel, Mr Mel Christle SC, said the challenge arose from a defective batch of breathalysers from Wales about which the State was refusing to furnish any documentation.
Mr Manson is arguing he cannot mount a full defence to the charges against him unless he receives the documents sought and until the trial court hears evidence from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety about the apparatus used to ground the charges against him.
Mr Justice Kinlen said he believed the delay in this case getting to court may have held up the prosecution of drink-driving cases in a large part of the State.
The State denies the claims and pleads it has acted at all times in accordance with fair procedures. It argues Mr Manson is not entitled to the documents sought and it was not the State's duty to procure the attendance of any witness suggested by Mr Manson. It says Mr Manson can, under District Court rules, secure the attendance of any witness or procure any documents specified in a witness order.
The State also submits that no evidence had been put before the court that any equipment relating to breath-testing was used in relation to Mr Manson. The charge against him was that he had an excess of alcohol in his urine, it said.
Mr Feichin McDonagh SC, for the three respondents, said there was absolutely no suggestion in this case of the use of a defective batch of alcolysers and it was not part of the defendant's case before the court.
Mr Justice Kinlen said: "It may arise."
If the matter arose in the course of the trial, it would be a matter for the trial judge to deal with, counsel replied.
Mr Justice Kinlen reserved judgment and said he expected to be able to give his decision early in the new year.