The Supreme Court has been asked to decide a matter of law which could lead to the collapse of recently introduced "intoxiliser" legislation. The intoxiliser, a definitive breath proof of intoxication levels for court hearings, replaced blood and urine tests when introduced in 2000.
Circuit Court Judge Bryan McMahon yesterday sought the assistance of the Supreme Court in determining an appeal by a senior executive of the Irish Development Authority who was convicted of having failed to provide two breath samples to gardaí on June 10th 2000.
The court heard that Michael Finn, Somerby Road, Greystones, Co Wicklow, had been disqualified from driving for two years, fined €250 and had his licence endorsed by Judge Brian Kirby in the District Court.
Mr Michael P Higgins, counsel for Finn, told the court his client had been arrested on the Stillorgan dual carriageway on suspicion of having driven while under the influence of drink. He had been taken to Dún Laoghaire Garda Station at 11.40 p.m.
Mr Higgins had submitted that, since the Road Traffic Act did not contain any statutory authority to the gardaí to detain Mr Finn for any period of time prior to requesting breath samples, Mr Finn had been unlawfully held from the time he arrived at the station until the time he had declined to provide breath samples, 27 minutes later.
Mr Ronan O'Neill, State Solicitor, submitted it was not unreasonable that an arrested man would have to wait in garda custody for 27 minutes.
Judge McMahon asked the Supreme Court for its opinion on two questions of law:- Was Mr Finn in lawful detention when the requirement to provide two breath samples was made and, if the higher court's answer was "no," did that render inadmissable the evidence subsequently obtained?