Thousands of drink-drive prosecutions could be declared invalid following a decision by Supreme Court today.
The court ruled that Garda guidelines dictating that a drink-drive suspect had to be observed for 20 minutes ahead of a breath test sample had no basis in law.
The loophole was uncovered when the Supreme Court gave directions on legal issues connected with the prosecution of Mr Michael Finn, an executive with the IDA.
Mr Finn, from Greystones, Co Wicklow, was banned from driving for two years and fined €200 by the District Court last year.
Since 2000 the Garda has used Intosilyzer machines to carry out breath tests, which have replaced blood and urine tests for court hearings in drink-driving cases. Use of the equipment requires a 20-minute delay to ensure the person involved does not consume any food or drink before the test.
Mr Finn appealed against his conviction for failing to provide breath samples in Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin, to the Circuit Court, which referred it to the Supreme Court for a ruling after a challenge on the 20-minute hold-up issue.
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court's five-judge panel said there was no evidence to indicate why the delay was necessary. Therefore Mr Finn had not been in lawful detention when asked to give the specimen sample, making evidence subsequently obtained inadmissible.
The implications of the Supreme Court ruling were today being given a detailed assessment by Government officials and legal experts.
Speaking after the hearing Mr Finn's solicitor, Mr David Montgomery, said: "My understanding is that there are a number of thousands of cases awaiting the outcome of this.
"It remains to be seen how the Garda authorities and the Director of Public Prosecutions deal with this - whether they produce technical evidence in cases that are before the courts or bring in statutory legislation to cover the situation going forward.
"It will take some time to consider it."
He added: "The challenge was that there was essentially no statutory authority for the delay and the gardaí could not by themselves decide what was an appropriate period to hold somebody.
"The only evidence given in court was that there were Garda guidelines, but there was no indication as to where they were sourced."
Mr Montgomery said he did not believe retrospectively-applying legislation on the issue could be introduced.
PA