The new device for measuring levels of alcohol in a person's breath, being used by gardai checking for drink-driving, will remain in use despite being questioned by a District Judge.
Last Tuesday, Judge Desmond P. Hogan said in Kiltimagh District Court he would ask the High Court for its opinion on the working of the Intoxyliser.
It is being used on a pilot basis in the Garda District of Castlebar, Co Mayo, and that covered by Pearse Street station in Dublin.
The device makes it unnecessary for a doctor to be called to a Garda station to carry out blood tests on a driver suspected of having consumed more alcohol than allowed under the legislation.
Instead, the driver breathes into the device twice, and this measures the amount of alcohol in his/her breath. The lower of the two readings is taken.
In court last Tuesday, Judge Hogan asked how, precisely, figures presented in court were arrived at, and what their legal basis was.
He adjourned the case pending a decision of the High Court.
A spokeswoman for the Garda told The Irish Times yesterday that the device had been provided for in law since 1997.
It would remain in use until there was a decision of the High Court. However, according to legal sources, if a solicitor for a client accused of drink-driving on the basis of evidence from the Intoxyliser makes the same arguments as those made in Kiltimagh, it is likely that a District Judge would adjourn any case until High Court clarification.
Meanwhile, Dr Denis Cusack, of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety (MBRS), was adamant that this in no way represented a setback for the device.
"Judge Hogan quite properly referred a question to the High Court for an opinion. The judge did not have the benefit of all the scientific background before him.
"The MBRS will be happy to put all the information on which this is based to the court. "It is up to the court to be satisfied. The court will also look into the interpretation of the law. That is not up to us.
"It is inevitable with any new technology that clarification will be required. It is better that questions are raised sooner rather than later, when it is up and running."
He pointed out that this, or a similar, device had been used widely in other jurisdictions without any legal problem.