The Court of Appeal has confirmed that Gardaí are not required to warn an arrested person of the evidential implications of choosing between a blood or urine sample under s.12(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 (“RTA 2010”).
Delivering judgment, Mr Justice Collins held that there is no obligation in law to advise an accused that only a blood sample can be analysed for the concentration of a drug, while a urine sample can establish only its presence. The Court found that the appellant had shown no prejudice arising from the absence of such a warning.
The appellant, was convicted in the District Court of driving while under the influence of an intoxicant, contrary to s.4(1) of the RTA 2010. After being arrested in March 2018 for erratic driving, he provided a urine sample which revealed the presence of cannabinoids but an alcohol level below the statutory limit. He argued that he had not been told that only a blood sample could be tested for drug concentration under s.4(1A), and that this omission denied him fair procedures. The District Court rejected the argument, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court.
On appeal, the appellant contended that Gardaí should have been required to warn him that a blood sample would be analysed for both the presence and concentration of a drug, whereas a urine sample would be tested only for presence. Mr Justice Collins dismissed the appeal, observing that proof of an offence under s.4(1) does not depend on demonstrating a specific concentration of an intoxicant. The Court reiterated that charging decisions rest solely with the Director of Public Prosecutions, and no accused has a legitimate expectation that the DPP will prefer one charge over another where the evidence supports both.
The Court concluded that, except where a failure to warn could expose an accused to penal consequences or deprive them of a constitutional defence, Gardaí are under no legal obligation to explain the evidential implications of providing a blood or urine sample. The appeal was dismissed.