Breathalyser test case returned to District Court

A case which is said to be holding up a number of drink-driving trials was returned yesterday by the High Court to the District…

A case which is said to be holding up a number of drink-driving trials was returned yesterday by the High Court to the District Court.

When the case was before the High Court last month, it was stated a large number of drink-driving court cases were being held up pending the challenge by Mr Sterling Manson to the alleged failure by the State to give him access to documents regarding what was described as a faulty batch of breathalysers.

Mr Manson, a veterinary surgeon, of Strabane Road, Castlederg, Co Tyrone, brought judicial review proceedings seeking documents, written records and correspondence in relation to breath-testing equipment used prior to and subsequent to the 1994 Road Traffic Act.

He also sought documents in relation to the testing of this equipment and documents in relation to breath, blood and urine tests.

READ MORE

Mr Manson is facing charges alleging dangerous driving at Coolslin, Castlefin, Co Donegal in the early hours of October 9th, 1995, and drink driving on the same occasion. The judicial review proceedings were against District Judge O'Donnell, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety.

Mr Manson's counsel, Mr Mel Christle SC, submitted that the challenge arose from a defective batch of breathalysers from Wales on which the State was refusing to furnish any documentation. He said his client was entitled to any document in relation to the origin of the breathalyser used by gardai on him and the batch from which it came.

Mr Feichin McDonagh SC, for the State, said there was no suggestion in this case of the use of a defective batch of alcolysers and it was not part of the defendant's case before the court.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Kinlen said District Judge O'Donnell at present had charge of the case and had adjourned it on many occasions.

However, the High Court would not interfere with his jurisdiction to consider all evidence before him. The District Judge would take such steps as he might deem necessary to ensure he had all the facts and could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before he would convict.