A 27-year-old man who was accused of driving with cannabis in his system has had his case dismissed on appeal.
Judge Ronan Munro decided to dismiss the charge against Cal Murphy at the District Court Appeals Court, but said that the prosecuting garda was to be “commended”.
Mr Murphy, with an address at East Priory, Navan Road, Dublin 7, was convicted in the District Court of driving a vehicle while there was present in his body a quantity of drugs, namely cannabis, equal or greater to the specified amount contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 2010.
He was given a community service order of 240 hours in lieu of four months imprisonment and a four-year disqualification. He later lodged an appeal against his conviction.
Garda Ian Galvin told the District Court Appeals Court that he was on patrol on Charlemont Street, Dublin 2 on December 13, 2023 when he noticed an Audi A3 driving at speed.
He said that he stopped the vehicle and that while speaking to the driver, he got a smell of cannabis coming from the car.
The garda said that he also noticed a grinder in the centre console. He said that Mr Murphy was not fully coherent, that his eyes were glassy and that he was concerned about his driving.
He said that he conducted a roadside oral fluid test and that it indicated the presence of cannabis.
Garda Galvin said he told Mr Murphy that he had formed an opinion that he was incapable of driving in a public place and explained that he was under arrest for drug driving.
He said that the appellant was brought back to Kevin Street Garda Station and that he provided a specimen of blood.
The garda said that he handed the blood sample to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety on December 19, 2023. He said that the results returned were 63.1ng/ml of 11-nor-9-carboxy-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Cannabis) and 7.1ng/ml of tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis).
Garda Galvin said that he was working night shifts and that the sample was kept in a locker which only he had access to.
The garda said in his evidence that Mr Murphy was arrested under section 4(8) of the Road Traffic Act for the suspected offence of section 4(1), drug driving.
Defence counsel for Mr Murphy, David Staunton BL, said that he had concerns with the compliance in taking a blood sample under section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 2010.
He said that to use section 13, the garda must be under the opinion that the appellant is in contravention of section 4(1)(a).
He said that the garda did not say at any point that he had formed a view contrary to section 4(1)(a) that he had exceeded the lawful concentration of drugs in his system. He said that this was a critical omission.
Mr Staunton said that the garda said multiple times in evidence that the offence was section 4(1) drug driving – which requires section 12 of the Road Traffic Act to be invoked.
Counsel for the prosecution said that the facts draw inference that the garda was arresting Mr Murphy and formed an opinion of drug driving, entitling him to invoke section 13(b).
Prosecution counsel said that, based on the facts from the garda and on his evidence, the witness was of the opinion that Mr Murphy was driving over the legal limit of drugs in his system.
Mr Staunton said that there was no inference to be drawn in his case as the garda said section 4(1) in his evidence and that he did not say his statement was wrong.
Judge Munro said that the garda was to be “commended” and that he thought he was “quite meticulous”.
The judge said that in order for a blood test to be taken under section 13(b), the garda must have been of the opinion that there was a contravention of section 4(1)(a) that the defendant was over the lawful levels.
He said that the garda’s direct evidence was quite clearly that the arrest was under section 4(1) of the Road Traffic Act and that this was confirmed.
He said that he was going to dismiss the case and that the charge was not proven in accordance with the law.
Judge Munro told Mr Murphy that the charge was dismissed and that he was free to go with the presumption of innocence intact.