Vol. 506 No. 2
43 Mr. McGinley asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if the gardaí will continue to invoke section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, in view of the District Court and High Court judgments which found that there could be a doubt regarding the integrity of the container used for dispatching specimens; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15268/99]
Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 deals with the procedure to be followed by the gardaí and the designated doctor regarding the taking of specimens of blood and the provision of specimens of urine in cases of suspected drink driving.
The Act provides that after the taking of the specimens of blood or urine by the doctor the specimen is divided into two parts and each part is placed in a container which is sealed and a prescribed form is completed. The garda is required to offer the suspect one of the sealed containers together with a statement in writing indicating that he or she may retain either of the containers. The container retained by the garda is forwarded to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety for analysis. If the suspect refuses to accept the offer of a container of his or her sample this container is also sent to the bureau.
(Mayo): Is the Minister aware that there is a major problem with this Act, given that a District Justice in Cork, Judge Pattwell, found there was no guarantee about the integrity of the container? The matter was appealed by the State to the High Court and Mr. Justice O'Donovan upheld the District Justice's decision with the result that no drink driving cases are being processed at present. What is the current state of play? Will the case be appealed to the Supreme Court or can we anticipate the introduction of new legislation?
The matter referred to by Deputy Higgins, which concerns a challenge regarding the containers in which samples are sent to the bureau, has been appealed to the Supreme Court by the State. That case was heard on Thursday, 3 June, but judgment was reserved and the decision of the court is awaited. In the meantime, where gardaí find evidence of drinking and driving, specimens are taken and analysed and, where cases are listed for hearing, adjournments are sought pending the Supreme Court decision.
(Mayo): While I do not want to pre-empt the Supreme Court decision, in the event of the Supreme Court upholding the decision of the District Court and the High Court, does the Minister accept the position will be chaotic? If amending legislation is not introduced before the summer recess, we will have an open season for drinking and driving. Can the Minister indicate when the Supreme Court will give its reserve judgment, when we can have a final determination on this matter and whether the doubt and ambiguity that surrounds this matter at present will be put to rest or dealt with if the challenge is deemed to be successful?
As the Deputy pointed out, we must await the decision of the Supreme Court. Despite the challenges to section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994, the gardaí can continue to deal with drivers suspected of drinking and driving under sections 49 and 41 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. In these cases a doctor conducts a medical examination and does not take a sample. Such cases form 16 per cent of drink driving prosecutions. Therefore, the door the not closed on the gardaí.
I am alarmed at the Minister's complacency on this matter. While the earlier Road Traffic Act is being used, but in only 16 per cent of cases, does he agree most of the cases that are being backlogged pending the Supreme Court decision will be struck out because of being charged under section 18 of the later Act? Notwithstanding the imminent decision of the Supreme Court, would it not be appropriate for the Minister to ensure this loophole is plugged before the Dáil goes into recess? He has an absolute responsibility to the Irish people, to motorists and to those who use our roads during the summer to do that.
The charge of complacency is a political one, which is nonsense. The case is before the Supreme Court.
While the Minister sits on his hands.
I am not in a position at this point to pre-empt what the Supreme Court will decide. I outlined that there are alternative methods available to the Garda Síochána in cases of alleged drunk driving and in the past the gardaí have utilised those measures to telling effect. It is true that the newer procedures are used in the majority of cases by the Garda Síochána, but legislation provides for an alternative avenue and the gardaí have been known to go down that avenue on a regular basis. We will await the Supreme Court decision and consider what action is required at that point, but it would be ludicrous to expect me to introduce legislation at this point.
(Mayo): Given that 84 per cent of the cases are sample based and come under section 18 of this Act, does the Minister accept we are facing a nightmare?
A brief question Deputy, we are running out of time.
(Mayo): Does the Minister not see, as Deputy Howlin pointed out, there is an obligation on him to put a contingency plan in place by way of the preparation of emergency legislation in the event of the Supreme Court determining that the judgments in the District and High Courts were correct? If they are upheld, the Minister has an obligation to introduce contingency legislation—
I call on the Minister for a brief final reply.
(Mayo):—to plug the obvious gap and the open season which will ensue.
I have already outlined my position. The law is there to be obeyed and there is a duty on all members of society to obey the law. This particular measure has been considered by the Supreme Court, judgment has been reserved and I am awaiting a decision.
If it is struck down, what will the Minister do between now and the autumn?
Will the Deputy please allow the Minister to conclude?
I assure the House that, following on the judgment, the Government will do whatever is required and necessary. In the meanwhile, I merely point out that an alternative avenue is open.
