The charge of drink-driving is "notorious for throwing up technical points and very often specious technical points", a Supreme Court judge said yesterday.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty was granting an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the dismissal of a drink-driving charge against a Co Roscommon man on the grounds that there was excessive delay in prosecuting the case.
The case against Mr Coman McNeill, of Ballyglass, Four-mile-house, who was charged with driving with excess alcohol in his blood and failing to stop when required to do so by a garda on January 15th, 1996, has been returned to the District Court.
In a separate appeal, the court upheld a conviction of another man on a drink-driving charge. Counsel for Mr Seamus Somers, of River View, Ardnore, Kilkenny, had argued that the failure of a doctor to complete part of a form attached to his blood sample entitled him to a dismissal. Rejecting the submission, Mr Justice O'Flaherty said: "If courts were to allow such flimsy points as this to govern cases, the administration of justice would most likely be brought into disrepute."
In the McNeill case, the DPP had appealed a High Court decision which found Judge Bernard Brennan was correct in dismissing the charge against Mr McNeill on grounds of excessive delay. The district judge found that from April 1996 summonses were forwarded on a number of occasions for service on Mr McNeill but service was not effected until October 1996, when it was effected by registered post. The original summons was mislaid and the matter did not come up for hearing. In January 1997 an application was made for further summonses and these were served on Mr McNeill and a hearing was fixed for February 1997.
After a preliminary hearing, the judge was not satisfied that enough effort was made to effect service and he dismissed the charges. The High Court found the judge was entitled to infer that the delay would prejudice Mr McNeill. The DPP appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.
Mr Justice O'Flaherty said the DPP had correctly argued that while the delay was 12 months, Mr McNeill had been served by registered post at an earlier stage and must have known a charge was in the offing. "In relation to the charge of drunk driving that is notorious for throwing up technical points - and very often specious technical points - we do well to remind ourselves that courts of law exist to do justice between the parties and not to act as disciplinary tribunals over the conduct of litigation. "Nonetheless, we do not breach that guideline by repeating that there is a solemn responsibility on anyone having anything to do with prosecuting cases to make sure that they are brought to court with all due expedition." In the second case, Circuit Court Judge Sean O'Leary sought the Supreme Court's view on whether he was right to dismiss an appeal by Mr Somers against a District Court conviction of September 19th, 1995, for driving with excess alcohol in his blood. Mr Justice O'Flaherty held Judge O'Leary was correct.
He said Mr Somers was arrested on June 6th, 1995, and gave a sample of blood to a doctor at Kilkenny Garda station. The doctor was required to fill in a form regarding the sample and did so, except for one paragraph dealing with the nature of the specimen. As the doctor had already deleted wording relating to a urine sample, there could be no doubt the form conveyed that it was concerned with a blood sample. He found the judge was correct in holding that the failure of the doctor to complete clause 2 of the form did not entitled the accused to a dismissal. Where there was "a tiny flaw" in filling out such a document - a flaw of no significance - the courts were required to say such a slip "cannot be allowed bring about a manifest injustice as far as the prosecution of this offence is concerned". Mr Justice Barron and Mr Justice Lynch agreed with Mr Justice O'Flaherty.