Drink-drive loopholes

manutd

A man who failed a breathalyser test after drinking nine pints the previous night has been cleared of the charge following a legal ruling that could spark other appeals.

The Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew a charge against a Co Donegal man whose lawyer had argued that a checkpoint at which his client was stopped by gardai was unlawful.
Other motorists who have been charged with similar offences but have yet to appear in court could now have their cases struck out if those charges are challenged in the District Court.
Sean McKeown, from Abbey Park, Manorcunningham, Co Donegal, walked free from Letterkenny District Court yesterday after a charge of driving a vehicle whilst exceeding the alcohol limit was dropped.
Garda Tara Clinton Quinn had given evidence at the court last month that she arrested 40-year-old Mr McKeown at 11.30am on November 13, 2011 in the townland of Raymoghey, Manorcunningham.
She said she had asked Mr McKeown whether he had been drinking and that he had admitted having nine pints the night before, finishing up at 1.40am.
Mr McKeown had failed the breath test, was arrested and taken to Letterkenny garda station, she said.
However the defendant's solicitor Ciaran MacLochlainn - the former state solicitor for Donegal - submitted lengthy legal arguments that the Mandatory Alcohol Testing (MAT) checkpoint at which Mr McKeown was arrested was unlawful.
The authorisation for the checkpoint on the date of Mr McKeown's arrest, he said, was signed by Superintendent Vincent O'Brien but it gave three different locations over a period of more than 23 hours.
UNLAWFUL
Mr MacLochlainn said the authorisation was unlawful and a breach of the Road Traffic Act, which "clearly" refers to the establishment of a single checkpoint.
By giving three locations on the same authorisation form, it gave a multiple choice to officers below the rank of inspector as to where and when they could set up a checkpoint.
It was the second time the DPP had withdrawn charges in a case challenged by the solicitor.

A similar drink-driving case in Buncrana was struck out after the solicitor had argued that including a townland in the authorisation form without specifying an exact location was also a breach of the legislation.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/drinkdrive-loophole-opens-door-to-appeals-29933717.html

People will look for anything to get off. That is what solicitors are for, but the way the act is written is open to abuse. The last paragraph above, takes the biscuit.


Road Traffic Act 2010

2) A member of the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of inspector, may, for the purposes of section 4 authorise the establishment of a checkpoint or checkpoints in a public place or places at which members of the Garda Síochána may exercise the powers under subsection (4). (3) An authorisation shall be in writing and shall specify— (a) the date on which, and the public place in which, the checkpoint is to be established, and
(b) the hours at any time between which it may be operated.

Why is there any need for an inspector to authorise a MAT checkpoint.

djimi

So the checkpoint was unauthorized. Who cares? If he was pulled over randomly on suspicion of being drunk then it would have stuck.

If the Garda has done something wrong then give them a slap on the wrist as a seperate matter. If the testing equipment is sound, and the driver was found to be over the limit, then they are guilty, end of story.

bbam

It's crazy to see lads getting let off fe drink driving.
But.

The letter of the law needs to be applied and not the spirit of it. The problem here is with slap dash implementation of the law.
The Guards can't be allowed to play fast and loose with the rules because the rules are there to protect the innocent as well as catch the guilty.

Zubeneschamali

djimi wrote: »

If he was pulled over randomly on suspicion of being drunk then it would have stuck.

Guards are not allowed to pull people randomly except at an authorised checkpoint.

godtabh

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Guards are not allowed to pull people randomly except at an authorised checkpoint.

I thought all the needed was a suspicion that a wrong doing has/is occurring?

Anan1

djimi wrote: »

So the checkpoint was unauthorized. Who cares? If he was pulled over randomly on suspicion of being drunk then it would have stuck.

If the Garda has done something wrong then give them a slap on the wrist as a seperate matter. If the testing equipment is sound, and the driver was found to be over the limit, then they are guilty, end of story.

There's a good reason why illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible - it's so that the Gardaí cannot benefit from, and therefore have no motive to, break the law.

jimgoose

manutd wrote: »

...Why is there any need for an inspector to authorise a MAT checkpoint.

So if a member of an Garda Siochána decides to down a bottle of Jimmy Beam, assemble a posse and go after some poor divil he doesn't like, he'll probably need to at least have gone to the bother of rising to the rank of inspector. It's a sort of safety-interlock, you see.

Zubeneschamali

godtabh wrote: »

I thought all the needed was a suspicion that a wrong doing has/is occurring?

No, the guard needs to "form an opinion" that a driver has been drinking. They can't just pull random cars.

If the checkpoint is for random checks, there are rules for when and where it can be done. If they don't follow the rules, they can't use the evidence.

Same as if they do a search of your house, but their warrant isn't in order.

MugMugs

This just serves to remind us that the law is an ass.

It's like that lad who wrote his car off pissed and the judge threw it out as when the Gardai got there the mechanically propelled vehicle was no longer mechanically propelled. Crazy!

Marcusm

djimi wrote: »

So the checkpoint was unauthorized. Who cares? If he was pulled over randomly on suspicion of being drunk then it would have stuck.

If the Garda has done something wrong then give them a slap on the wrist as a seperate matter. If the testing equipment is sound, and the driver was found to be over the limit, then they are guilty, end of story.

It's either random or with suspicion, it can't be both. No man's liberty can be removed without due process of law. That being said, I abhor drink driving.