Purcell -v- A.G. & anor [2006] IESC 64 (28 November 2006)

Purcell -v- A.G. & anor [2006] IESC 64 (28 November 2006)

The statutory procedures for evidential breath testing under the Road Traffic Act 1994, including the absence of a right to an independent or split breath sample, do not violate constitutional rights to fair procedures or a fair trial. The procedures are proportionate, include adequate safeguards, and the presumption arising from the breath test certificate is rebuttable. The inability to preserve or split breath samples is a technical limitation, not a constitutional defect. The legislative scheme maintains a reasonable balance between effective prosecution of drunk driving and the rights of the accused.

Citation
[2006] IESC 64
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ashley McGonnell; Plaintiff/appellant: Oliver Quinlan; Plaintiff/appellant: John Purcell; Defendant/respondent: Attorney General; Defendant/respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
28 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.
Legal Topics
Right to Fair Trial, Evidence Law, Road Traffic Offences, Proportionality, Due Process
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Right to Fair Trial Evidence Law Road Traffic Offences Proportionality Due Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashley McGonnell

Plaintiff/appellant

Oliver Quinlan

Plaintiff/appellant

John Purcell

Plaintiff/appellant

Attorney General

Defendant/respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory procedures for evidential breath testing under the Road Traffic Act 1994 violate constitutional rights to fair procedures and a fair trial by denying an accused the opportunity for an independent sample or test.
  2. 2 Whether the absence of a statutory right to a blood or urine sample, or to split breath samples, renders the procedures unconstitutional or disproportionate.

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory procedures for evidential breath testing under the Road Traffic Act 1994, including the absence of a right to an independent or split breath sample, do not violate constitutional rights to fair procedures or a fair trial. The procedures are proportionate, include adequate safeguards, and the presumption arising from the breath test certificate is rebuttable. The inability to preserve or split breath samples is a technical limitation, not a constitutional defect. The legislative scheme maintains a reasonable balance between effective prosecution of drunk driving and the rights of the accused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Statutory procedures for evidential breath testing upheld as constitutional.