Regarding the words "designated by a member of the Garda Síochána", I take it that this will cover a member of the Garda Síochána present in the station to which the arrested person had been taken?
Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 1973: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section I stand part of the Bill."
It is intended that the garda who makes the arrest will be the person responsible. I could not envisage any case in which somebody who was not present at the Garda station would be responsible.
Up to now the responsibility was confined to the member of the Garda Síochána in charge of the station to which the arrested person had been taken but I do not think that under the amended legislation this will be confined to the garda who brought the person to the station and that it will be open to any garda present in the station to assume the responsibility.
It might be better if the garda who was in charge of the station would be an officer senior to the one who brings in the arrested person. I cannot see the point of the Deputy's query because either the man who makes the arrest or the senior officer at the station will now be responsible for the test.
Or any other garda at the station.
What difference does it make? It will be the responsibility of a member of the Garda Síochána.
The previous definition stated "the garda in charge there". That contained a reference to the Garda station but there is no reference here to any Garda station.
I would like to point out that already I have given a reply to Deputy O'Connell indicating the three reasons for the change.
I accept that.
The Deputy must agree that this is an attempt to ensure the more effective working of the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I realise that we are in a difficult position here and the Minister seems obliged to bring in this amending legislation so as to ensure the continuance of the breathalyser system. At a time when the Dáil is facing a recess period, this measure has been rushed on the Minister but it is a pity that we are not being given more time in which to consider the operation of the system since 1968. I hope that in the not-too-distant future we will have such opportunity so that thorough consideration can be given to the operation of the Act since it was introduced. On this occasion we are only dealing with one aspect of it as a result of the Supreme Court decision. It has been brought to my notice that at present the arrested person must be brought to the Garda station but that situations have arisen whereby persons who were driving motor vehicles while under the influence of drink became aware of being under the observation of a member of the Garda Síochána and proceeded to the nearest Garda station, made their way inside but when accosted by the garda, under the Act, he was not able to bring a successful prosecution because he had not brought such people to the station. I understand that there has been an acquittal in such a case. It seems that there are little weaknesses such as this in the Act which we could have tidied up at this time.
There is no question of this Bill being rushed. If Deputy Molloy wishes to debate the Bill until tonight he may do so but he cannot be on both sides. The suggestion that, because a fellow goes into a Garda station of his own accord, there is, therefore, no way of arresting him, is a little too ridiculous to comment on but since Deputy Molloy, a former Minister, has made it, I feel I must comment. The position is that either he is allowed to stay until he sobers up, which is very unlikely, or, as soon as he goes out, he is liable to be arrested. I am aware of a case where this happened. I know of somebody who tried to be clever, went to the Garda station and as soon as he went outside he was arrested, brought back in and charged. I cannot accept that somebody goes to a Garda station and is allowed to stay there all night until he sobers up.
I only gave the instance to demonstrate that there were loopholes in the Act. For instance, there was a case similar to the one I have mentioned which was brought before the courts and the accused was acquitted on the defence which was made on these grounds.
Perhaps Deputy Molloy would give me particulars of the case? I would be very interested in it.
Yes. The Minister must accept that what I am saying is said in good faith and my information is that this has, in fact, happened under the Act.
I am not aware of it. Quite frankly, I cannot see how anybody could get away with that kind of thing.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Perhaps the Minister would elaborate as to why he deemed it necessary to word the amendment in this way: "sufficient evidence until the contrary is shown". This breaches the principle we mentioned already that the State should be expected to prove its own case. Here we are placing the onus on the accused to prove that the contrary is the case. Would it not have been equally effective, without placing the accused in this position, to have worded the amendment in such a way as to provide that the certificate shall be evidence, and leave it at that rather than breach the old principle which most people do not like to see breached?
I do not know about breaching an old principle.
There are plenty of precedents.
I would refer Deputy Molloy to section 44 (1) and (2) (b) of the 1968 Act where the very same wording is used. There is no question of a new principle. Unfortunately this was not accepted. If the previous Minister had continued on those lines we would not now be here arguing for amendment of the Act. The new wording is not open to the objection voiced by the Supreme Court, that is, that the evidence provided by the certificate is incontestible and the District Justice would be precluded from exercising his judgment in the matter. It is simply doing the opposite to what Deputy Molloy said. He says the onus of proof is on the person charged. If the person accused is now able to prove that the evidence given by the garda is wrong, then the District Justice has the right to use his own discretion, which he had not when it was stated that the evidence was conclusive.
Could the Minister say, in relation to subclause (2) (b), why he believes the change to be necessary. There was not much explanation in the memorandum circulated.
Under the existing subsection (2) (b) a certificate from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety is prima facie evidence “in so far as it states other facts obtained from records required to be kept under this Part.” Apart from that, it has no evidential value. The court could require oral evidence. In order to prevent this happening and cluttering up the courts it has now been decided that this would be brought in which makes the matter easier of administration without taking away any rights of the person accused.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 8 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.