A Co Dublin businessman was found not guilty yesterday when a judge ruled that he was a victim of unfair procedures in a prosecution to convict him on drink-driving charges.
Mr John Lacy (50), of Glenageary Woods, was accused of driving while over the limit and of refusing a breathalyser test in the car-park adjoining the Deerhunter Lounge, Glenageary, on November 25th.
Judge Brian Kirby said in Dun Laoghaire Court that the defendant was a victim of unfair procedures which had left reasonable doubts in his mind about a conviction.
The court heard that, after Mr Lacy refused a breathalyser test in the car park from Garda John Fahy, he was arrested and taken to Dun Laoghaire Garda station, where he then agreed to a blood alcohol test. The blood sample showed an alcohol level of 104 mg.
Mr Ronald Lynam, defending solicitor, told the court that Mr Lacy initially refused a breathalyser test because the garda had dropped a blade used to cut part of the breathalyser on to dirty wet ground.
Mr Lynam said that, from evidence, Garda Fahy picked the blade up from the ground and used it to snip the end of the breathalyser unit, which was then put on the mouthpiece for Mr Lacy's test.
He said that Mr Lacy rightly refused to allow this mouthpiece section into his mouth, as it had been handled by Garda Fahy. "In other words, my client was given a contaminated breathalyser. He was being asked to blow into it and this was very unfair. My client was willing to blow into a clean object."
The defence solicitor also argued that sections of the 1994, Road Traffic Act were not properly fulfilled in the Garda station, as the doctor who had carried out a blood test on Mr Lacy had omitted to delete the urine section on the certificate before the court.
Dismissing both charges, Judge Kirby said that a proper doctor's certificate was an integral part of the prosecution case and the doctor's omission had created an ambiguity.
The judge said that he was also taking into account the fact that Mr Lacy's blood-alcohol level was "at the lower level of the second division level", which gave the court the impression that the defendant had been aware of what was happening when he refused the first breathalyser test.