Phelim Doyle -v- Judge Murrough Connellan and the Director of Public Prosecutions.High Court, Neutral Citation: [2010] IEHC 287. Judgment was delivered by the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, on July 9th, 2010.
Judgment
Leave was refused for judicial review of the District Judge’s decision convicting Mr Doyle of an offence under Section 49(1) and (6) (a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended. The District Judge accepted Garda evidence that Mr Doyle had consumed an intoxicant to such an extent he was incapable of having proper control of a mechanically propelled vehicle. Mr Doyle was fined €2,500 and disqualified from driving for four years.
Background
The court was told Mr Doyle was stopped on November 2nd, 2007, by Garda Seamus O’Brien at Ballinabarney, Rathnew, Co Wicklow. Garda O’Brien formed the opinion Mr Doyle had used the handbrake to skid around a roundabout and his car was travelling at speed.
Garda O’Brien said Mr Doyle showed signs of intoxication in that his irises were dilated. He smelt cannabis from the vehicle. The Garda gave evidence Mr Doyle admitted ownership of a cannabis grinder found in his car, and to having consumed cannabis within the previous 24 hours.
Garda O’Brien gave evidence he suspected an offence had been committed under the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended, on the basis of the manner of Mr Doyle’s driving and his appearance and manner. Mr Doyle was arrested, and a blood sample taken from him showed negative for alcohol but positive for cannabis.
At the close of the prosecution case, David Tarrant, for Mr Doyle, sought a direction to dismiss on grounds including that the law did not prohibit the applicant from having drugs in his system while driving, but from driving with drugs in his system to such an extent he was incapable of properly controlling the vehicle. It was argued there was no such evidence. Mr Doyle did not give evidence.
District Judge Connellan convicted Mr Doyle of an offence under Section 49 (1) of the RTA 1961, as amended. Mr Tarrant said the judge had said: “The legislator has graded alcohol so it is possible to deal with ‘drunk driving’ by virtue of the amount of alcohol as dictated by the blood, urine or breath test. Because the legislator did not grade the quantity of drugs in one’s system, it was obvious it was the intention of the legislature that a conviction must follow where drugs are found in a person’s system.”
In the judicial review, it was submitted on behalf of Mr Doyle the District Court proceedings were flawed and thus susceptible to judicial review. It was argued Judge Connellan’s interpretation of Section 49 (1) was incorrect and there must be evidence the accused was (1) under influence of an intoxicant and (2) that influence was to such an extent as to make him incapable of having proper control of his vehicle.
Counsel for the DPP submitted this was an effort to revisit the evidence in the District Court, and judicial review was not available as an appeal against a decision of an inferior court or tribunal unless in extreme circumstances. It was also argued there was adequate evidence to support the conviction.
Decision
Mr Justice Kearns said this was not an appropriate case for judicial review. The appropriate remedy was an appeal to the Circuit Court against conviction.
The case revolved around the adequacy of the evidence adduced in the District Court, he said. A judicial review should not be granted unless the proceedings were fundamentally flawed due to some unfairness or impropriety in the hearing taken in its entirety.
The judge refused relief on grounds of excessive and unexplained delay in seeking leave to bring the judicial review proceedings.
Having derived “little assistance” from the cross-examination of Garda O’Brien and Mr Tarrant about their recollection of events in the District Court, the judge added that cross-examination of witnesses in such applications was best avoided “unless absolutely necessary”.
The full judgment is on www.courts.ie.
Michael O’Higgins SC and Damian Sheridan BL, instructed by Tarrant Tarrant Solicitors, Arklow, for the applicant; James Dwyer BL, for the DPP