The Supreme Court has decided that the cases of seven people, who earlier this week had their convictions on drink-driving offences quashed, should not be remitted to the District Court for retrials.
The seven won their appeals last Monday against their convictions because a judge refused to adjourn their cases to allow an intoximeter (a machine used to obtain breath samples) at a Garda station to be inspected. However, the Supreme Court stressed that its decision related only to the circumstances of the cases of the seven, and should not be taken as implying an entitlement to inspect intoximeters.
In its decision on Monday, the Supreme Court said the procedures adopted by the District Court judge were unfair and that the convictions should be quashed on grounds that the applications to inspect the intoximeter at Dún Laoghaire Garda station were unfairly refused.
Giving Monday's judgment, Mr Justice Geoghegan said nothing he had stated should be taken as suggesting that in any or every circumstances an inspection of an intoximeter should be permitted. He was finding that the District Court judge was wrong not to have entertained the application for the inspection.
Final orders in the seven cases were adjourned until yesterday when counsel for the Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction to remit the cases to the District Court. Counsel for the seven opposed the application. The Chief Justice, Mr Justice Keane, said the District Court proceedings had taken place in 2001 in respect of alleged offences of a summary nature that had been committed a number of years ago.
The court could not exclude the possibility that difficulties may arise over the lengthy period of time that had elapsed since, he said. The proceedings should be disposed of within a reasonable period and that had not happened.
He was satisfied that the Supreme Court, exercising its discretion, should not remit the cases to the District Court.
In November 2003, the High Court had made a decision upholding the District Court order of November 1st, 2001. The cases came before the Supreme Court by way of an appeal against the High Court judgment.
There had been a number of adjournments of the District Court proceedings prior to the decision of November 1st, 2001, while there was lengthy correspondence from solicitors for the seven with the Garda authorities to secure inspection of the intoximeter.
It was claimed on behalf of the seven that an order allowing inspection was required to allow them to prepare their defence properly. In judgment, Mr Justice Geoghegan said he was satisfied that in none of the cases did the District Court judge properly entertain the application before him relating to the inspection.