Drink driving

MagicSean

Can anyone point me in the direction of case law for drink driving, specifically evidential breath testing and the admissability of the section 17 statement.

Jo King

Dpp v Freeman is a good place to start.

http://www.courts.ie/80256F2B00356A6B/0/F0860AE35421109B802575BD003CFE03?Open&Highlight=0,freeman,~language_en~

MagicSean

Thanks for that. So my understanding of that is that the section 17 statement is admissable if a minor error is made (e.g wrong offence, incorrect spelling) but in-admissable if the statutory requirement hasn't been fulfilled (i.e. both signatures in the right order and offering one of the copies to the prisoner).

Would that be a proper interpretation?

Jo King

Pretty much. Breaches of statutory procedure deprive the certificate of it's evidential value. Minor clerical slips do not. it think both copies have to be given to the prisoner to sign. Then the prisoner chooses one.

MagicSean

If the section 17 statement is out is that the case gone? Or can the garda still give oral evidence as to the result and test itself? I would think the case is out as its a vital part of the case.

Jo King

Its game over if the section 17 cert goes. The accused will walk.

MagicSean

Jo King wrote: »

Its game over if the section 17 cert goes. The accused will walk.

So the section 17 statement is basically the same evidence as a certified result for a blood/urine analysis?

Our man in Havana

k_mac wrote: »

So the section 17 statement is basically the same evidence as a certified result for a blood/urine analysis?

Yes.

Now I wonder what is the situation where the accused fails to sign either document? I wouldn't think it would matter a jot.

Jo King

There is a separate offence of refusing to sign the S17 cert. The Guard has complied with the statutory procedure when he offers the statements to be signed. The accused would not be able to invalidate the S17 cert by using his own refusal to sign.

Our man in Havana

Thanks Jo, I didn't think it would be that easy to wriggle out of it.

Hooch

k_mac wrote: »

So the section 17 statement is basically the same evidence as a certified result for a blood/urine analysis?

Summons for Section 49 (1) and give rely on the investigating Gardas evidence, the members in charge and any assisting members. The more the better.

This happens quite alot with members who have only recently done the course.

Jo King

nice guy always wrote: »

Summons for Section 49 (1) and give rely on the investigating Gardas evidence, the members in charge and any assisting members. The more the better.

This happens quite alot with members who have only recently done the course.

A bit late after the court rejects the S17 cert.

Hooch

Jo King wrote: »

A bit late after the court rejects the S17 cert.

Yes.....but if the investigating members sees it before the summons are issued.....just switch to a simplicitor im sure you'll agree....

Jo King

nice guy always wrote: »

Yes.....but if the investigating members sees it before the summons are issued.....just switch to a simplicitor im sure you'll agree....

So the investigating member sees a problem with the S17 cert before the summons is issued. He then manufactures notes to justify a S49(1) and encourages his mates in the station to do the same! It is not a course I would recommend to the o/p. His local DJ may not be as tolerant as yours and he could dig a big hole for himself. One member was fired recently for trying to cover up a gaffe in a s.49. the o/p is clearly a complete beginner in this area and he would be most unlikely to pull it off if a proper defence was mounted.
In some parts of the country S.49s are not defended at all and when they are defended they are not defended well. In other areas vigorous and well resourced defences are mounted.

Hooch

Jo King wrote: »

So the investigating member sees a problem with the S17 cert before the summons is issued. He then manufactures notes to justify a S49(1) and encourages his mates in the station to do the same! It is not a course I would recommend to the o/p. His local DJ may not be as tolerant as yours and he could dig a big hole for himself. One member was fired recently for trying to cover up a gaffe in a s.49. the o/p is clearly a complete beginner in this area and he would be most unlikely to pull it off if a proper defence was mounted.
In some parts of the country S.49s are not defended at all and when they are defended they are not defended well. In other areas vigorous and well resourced defences are mounted.

Where the hell did I say anything about manufacturing notes???!!!

A good Garda keeps very clear notes at the time of the incident which will include everything that is needed for a section 49 prosecution....49 (1), (2), (3) or (4). As does the members in charge.

Get a grip....its not one big conspiracy. I've seen solicitors use minor lie's in court far more than Gardaí do mate......

Our man in Havana

Seconds out!

MagicSean

What makes you think the notes would be changed? It's simply the charge that changes. The evidence and notes and investigation are all the same but the lack of a certified section 17 statement means that a 49(4) charge can't go ahead due to lack of evidence. But there would still be enough evidence for a simplicitor charge without the need for any shenanigans.

Hooch

k_mac wrote: »

What makes you think the notes would be changed? It's simply the charge that changes. The evidence and notes and investigation are all the same but the lack of a certified section 17 statement means that a 49(4) charge can't go ahead due to lack of evidence. But there would still be enough evidence for a simplicitor charge without the need for any shenanigans.

Exactly.....

McCrack

K mac you may or may not be aware of this text by Mark De Blacam "Drunken Driving and the Law". I think it's in it's second edition now, it's the bible on drink driving in this jurisdiction. Essential reading for any person involved in prosecuting or defending drink/drug driving.

Strongly recommend.

Hooch

McCrack wrote: »

K mac you may or may not be aware of this text by Mark De Blacam "Drunken Driving and the Law". I think it's in it's second edition now, it's the bible on drink driving in this jurisdiction. Essential reading for any person involved in prosecuting or defending drink/drug driving.

Strongly recommend.

On that all Traffic Corps offices have a copy......great for reference;)

Michael Angelo.

Im slightly confused, is technically sufficient for a copy of Section 17 Statement (not signed) to be used in a prosecution????....