Urgent move to close drink-driving loophole

URGENT steps are to be taken to close a legal loophole which has left thousands of drink-driving prosecutions in doubt after the Supreme Court found procedures used in breath tests had no legal basis.

Department of Transport officials were studying the Supreme Court's decision last night in the uneasy knowledge that from today solicitors all over the country will seek to have drink-driving cases struck out on the basis of the decision.

Until the matter is cleared up gardaí are also faced with the dilemma of whether to revert to taking blood and urine samples the time-consuming process which the new breath test was supposed to eliminate.

The ruling questions the use of the Intoxilyzer breath test which has been in use since December 1999 and now accounts for samples taken in three-quarters of the 12,000 suspected drink-driving cases pursued each year.

The decision is a blow to the Government's hard-hitting drink-driving campaign which is already under pressure for failing to meet a targeted 20% reduction in deaths from drink-driving.

It also represents an embarrassment to the State as the Supreme Court judges said no explanation was offered to defend the procedures used in taking breath tests with the Intoxilyzer.

Even solicitor, David Montgomery, who took the case to the Supreme Court on behalf of client, Michael Finn, said that the outcome would have been very different if the most obvious defence had been employed.

The case centred on the legality of a 27-minute delay between the arrest of Mr Finn, an Industrial Development Authority executive from Somerby Road, Greystones, Co Wicklow, and the garda request to him to breathe into the Intoxilyzer.

Mr Finn, who was disqualified from driving for two years in the district court case that followed his arrest in June, 2000, appealed his conviction to the circuit court on the grounds that he was unlawfully detained for those 27 minutes.

The manufacturers of the Intoxilyzer recommend a wait of at least 20 minutes to ensure their product gives an accurate reading but this evidence was not presented in court where it was heard only that the delay was a "garda operating guideline".

In the absence of scientific evidence to support it, the five judges of the Supreme Court who were referred the case from the circuit court, ruled that the delay was unjustified, that Mr Finn had been unlawfully detained and that any evidence presented against him was therefore inadmissable.

Presiding judge Mr Justice John Murray said there was no evidence "as to why observance of the guidelines was reasonably necessary for achieving the purpose for which the accused was arrested".

A garda spokesman said the advice of the Garda Traffic Bureau was being sought in relation to the issue while Transport Minister Seamus Brennan said he would "urgently study the Supreme Court judgment to ascertain its implications".

He added that he was determined that there would be no let-up in the campaign against drink driving.