The High Court has dismissed a claim by seven people that their right to a fair trial on drink- driving charges was prejudiced by a District Court judge's failure to allow them inspect an intoximeter in Dún Laoghaire Garda station. The intoximeter is a device used to obtain breath samples.
Mr Justice Ó Caoimh rejected claims by the seven that District Court judge Mr Brian Kirby was wrong when he refused to adjourn their trials to allow them inspect the intoximeter.
Judge Kirby subsequently convicted all seven on drink-driving charges. They then took High Court proceedings against the judge and the DPP.
In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Ó Caoimh said solicitors for the seven had entered into lengthy correspondence with Garda authorities and the Medical Bureau for Road Safety to secure inspection of the intoximeter. The medical bureau had indicated a court order would be necessary and there was also a question of its costs for supervising and retesting the equipment.
Lawyers for the seven said their clients had been convicted on the basis of statements issued by the intoximeter and they complained that their application to inspect the device had been consistently refused by Judge Kirby. The seven had been convicted despite an application by their solicitors for dismissal of the cases on grounds that, because of the failure to allow inspection, they could not call evidence or test the prosecution evidence.
Counsel for the DPP had argued there was an air of unreality about the applications to inspect. There was no evidence that an expert would have had a reasonable prospect of establishing how the machine worked over a year earlier.
Mr Justice Ó Caoimh said it was clear neither the DPP nor the Garda Síochána could give the right of inspection where the apparatus was not under their control. The onus rested on the seven to satisfy the District Court that the interests of justice required the examination of the instrument and that the seven were prepared to meet the reasonable requirements of the medical bureau.
They had failed to demonstrate that the failure to adjourn their cases deprived them of a fair trial, the judge found.
The seven had failed to satisfy the court that they had been deprived of a reasonable possibility of rebutting the evidence brought against them, he ruled. He dismissed the claims but put a stay on his decision in the event of an appeal.
