Show summary Hide summary
The High Court has ruled that drivers who challenge drink-driving convictions are entitled to an inspection of the breath-testing equipment used in their cases, rejecting objections from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) based on cost and technical difficulties. The judgment stems from an appeal against a Circuit Court order that permitted a full examination of a breathalyser known as an evidenzer.
How the case arose
Patrick James Flanagan was arrested on suspicion of drink driving on 2 May 2022 and supplied two breath samples at Thurles Garda station. The machine recorded readings of 66µg of alcohol — roughly three times the legal limit of 22µg — and he was convicted in the District Court on 18 July 2023.
Following that conviction, Judge Catherine Staines in the Clonmel Circuit Court granted Mr Flanagan permission to have the breath-testing device fully inspected. The DPP appealed that decision to the High Court.
City-centre eatery in Dublin to close after 40 years, owner says it breaks their heart
Road Safety Authority justifies €1.5m outlay on breathalysers for Irish pubs
State’s objections to inspection
The DPP argued the Circuit Court had not properly weighed the proportionality of the inspection requested. Prosecutors said they could not provide the device’s software codes because they are covered by a non-disclosure clause in the contract between the Medical Bureau of Road Safety and the software supplier, Autosober.
They also warned that dismantling the machines could render them unfit for service. Each unit costs about €12,000, the DPP submitted, and it estimated that inspecting every machine in the State in the same way could push total costs above €1 million.
Expert evidence and testing options
On behalf of Mr Flanagan, consultant engineer Mark Jordan told the Circuit Court he needed access to the evidenzer’s software codes and algorithms to test its forensic integrity. That evidence underpinned the request for a detailed inspection.
MBRS analyst Louise Lawlor told the court the bureau is willing to allow supervised simulated tests using known alcohol quantities to validate a machine’s accuracy. She also explained that devices are subject to checks by supervisors each month, with more thorough testing every six months.
The High Court’s finding
High Court Judge Anthony Barr dismissed the grounds advanced by the DPP and upheld Judge Staines’s decision. He agreed that the Circuit Court was entitled to decide what level of inspection was necessary to test the evidenzer’s forensic integrity.
Judge Barr also said the Medical Bureau of Road Safety should have sought contractual rights to permit such access if the law entitled defendants to inspect the equipment. He noted Judge Staines had considered whether dismantling the device would effectively destroy it and found no basis to alter that conclusion.
The ruling leaves open the possibility that similar inspection requests could be allowed in other drink-driving challenges, and may prompt closer attention to how suppliers’ contracts with the MBRS address access to software and testing.
