A district court judge in Donegal yesterday was strongly critical of the Director of Public Prosecutions, saying his attitude was despicable, arrogant and disrespectful.
Judge Thomas Fitzpatrick was clearly angry when he learned in Donegal District Court that the DPP had denied his request for the director of the Medical Bureau of Road Safety to attend or send a representative to his court to answer questions on the validity of breathalyser equipment used by gardai.
Solicitor Mr Paudge Dorrian, representing a Killybegs client in an alleged drink-driving case, had argued at a previous hearing that the equipment was not valid for use here and may have been a job lot rejected by British police.
Mr Dorrian said it appeared the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided he could override the power of a district court judge, something he considered a serious Constitutional matter.
"If it is not contempt it is impertinence of the highest order to attack your integrity and that of every judge in the land," Mr Dorrian said to Judge Fitzpatrick.
No one appeared at the court yesterday for the medical bureau. Garda Insp Michael Barrett said it was not necessary to issue a summons to have someone from the road safety bureau attend.
He confirmed to Judge Fitzpatrick that he had been notified in writing by the DPP that it "was not the function of a judge of the district court to direct the prosecution as to what witnesses they should call to prove any particular case".
Judge Fitzpatrick said he found it a most appalling situation that the Director of Public Prosecutions should act in such an arrogant manner. The DPP had shown "disdain, disrespect and arrogance" and there were "no other words to describe his despicable attitude to the court", Judge Fitzpatrick said.
He added that the Director of Public Prosecutions was " in effect thumbing his nose at this court and is treating it with disdain and contempt". It appeared the DPP was now saying that he had more power than any judge and that was not the case. The court had the power to summons whatever witness it deemed were required.
Judge Fitzpatrick said the point being made, and which required clarification by the director or his representative, was whether the breathalyser device used in this alleged drink-driving case had been rejected by the British police.
He said it now appeared the authorities had something to hide about the breathalyser and that there was a skeleton in the cupboard.
He said he would issue a summons himself for someone to appear from the bureau, and if no one appeared he would issue a warrant for their arrest.
He said the matter was too important to be ignored and he would pursue it to the bitter end, even if that meant issuing a summons to the DPP himself to appear.
The judge adjourned the case for mention on March 6th, and said he would personally issue a summons for the director or some other member of the medical bureau to appear in court to answer the questions. If no one appeared on March 6th he would issue a warrant for their arrest.