Drink Driving Urine Sample Analysis

SoCoLime

Can anyone tell me what the story is with sending a "B" urine sample for analysis? I'm referring to the second sample given at the station when a person is taken in under suspicion of driving while intoxicated, which the suspect is allowed to keep. If it is sent off for independent analysis, does a copy of the result need to be sent to the Guards or is it up to the person who has the B sample whethere or not they notify the Guards? Thanks.

McCrack

No need to notify the arresting Garda.

Make sure you are represented by a solicitor/Counsel at the hearing.

It's your trump card to play (provided it's under the legal limit of course).

nuac

Surely you would have to give the state a copy of the analysis. Also if it were not being admitted, wouldn't you have to call the analyst.

Most judges do not like ambushes - wastes time of the court.

maidhc

nuac wrote: »

Surely you would have to give the state a copy of the analysis. Also if it were not being admitted, wouldn't you have to call the analyst.

Most judges do not like ambushes - wastes time of the court.

Well I suppose you are going to enter a plea of not guilty on the first date, and produce your witness on the second. Don't see why you need to share reports!

dermot_sheehan

Defendant has no obligation to disclose anything except in trial on indictments when being sent forward to the circuit court they have 14 days to disclose any alibis.

It's one of the handicaps the state has being the prosecution. They have to disclose everything (in district court hearings if subject to a garry doyle order), the defence has to disclose nothing.

One disadvantage the defence has is they would have to call the person who conducted the urinalysis since they can't certify that the sample contains a certain amount of alcohol like motor bureau of road safety analyisis can.

Our man in Havana

What would happen if the results are at odds with each other?

dermot_sheehan

Judge would have to decide which he believed.

In theory since it's beyond reasonable doubt, if the results of the B Sample created a doubt in his mind that the defendant was guilty, he should acquit.

But then again in the District Court...

Our man in Havana

But then again in the District Court...

Oh indeed. At least there is always a De Novo appeal to the Circuit Court available.

nuac

Last two posters are implying that there is some inadequacy in the District Court. District judges, like all judges vary in attitudes and quality. I know District Judges who listen carefully to the facts and submissions and apply the law carefully. I have seen some Circuit COurt Judges issue rough justice to appeals from the District COurt.

Jo King

The printout of the test of the "B" sample is hearsay and inadmissible. The only way of proving it is by calling the analyst who carried out the test. The state sample does not have to be proven because of the presumption in the Act.
If it is intended to rely on a document the other side should be told in advance and give a copy. It may happen that both sides agree that the document can be admitted without formal proof.
If there is a discrepancy the presumption in favour of the state's cwertificate is rebutted and it would be for the state to negative the defendants evidence. This would probably result in an adjournment of the trial to allow experts from the state laboratory to be called. If the prosecution are notified in advance that this evidence will be led and they do not have their witnesses in court the adjournment can be resisted.
Where the defence intends to lead evidence there is usually little to be gained by an ambush. the only time there should be surprise evidence in generally in cross examination when there is an attempt to undermine the evidence of the witness.