Supreme Court Victory for Dermot G. O’Donovan Solicitors: Appeal Dismissed and Client’s Conviction Quashed Over Statutory Breach

 The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal against our client, upholding our position and quashing the drink‑driving conviction on the basis of a breach of statutory procedure.

Dermot G. O’Donovan Solicitors successfully represented Mr. Hodgins before the High Court, securing the quashing of his drink‑driving conviction arising from a garda’s procedural error in signing statutory statements. However, this Decision was appealed by the State to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has upheld the quashing of our client’s drink-driving conviction; in a majority ruling, the court found that the garda signed the statements immediately after the accused, rather than before him as required by law, rendering the statements inadmissible. The appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was dismissed, with the court bound by the 2014 “letter of the law” decision reached in DPP v Freeman, which similarly ruled such errors invalidated evidence. The Supreme Court has ruled that there is no basis for overturning its previous ex tempore decision regarding breath alcohol tests.

Delivering the lead judgment, Ms. Justice Iseult O'Malley reiterated her view, previously expressed in the DPP v. Avadenei case, that Freeman represents an interpretation of statutory requirements, insisting on strict compliance with procedural details. She stated that the criteria for overturning a prior Supreme Court decision had not been met in this case.

Background

Our client was arrested under the Road Traffic Act 2010 on suspicion of drink-driving and provided two breath samples at the Garda station. The intoxilyser produced two identical statements as required by law, but the garda signed the statements after the respondent, contrary to the prescribed order set out in the Act.

After being convicted of drink-driving in the District Court, we appealed on behalf of our client. The Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge was bound by the 2014 Freeman decision, which held that the sequencing error rendered the statements inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal determined that the 2017 Avadenei case, which dealt with procedural errors in different circumstances, did not overrule Freeman, leaving the 2014 decision binding.

Supreme Court

On appeal, Ms. Justice O'Malley considered whether the procedural error in signing the statements invalidated the evidence, given that the error did not affect our client’s right to a fair trial. She found that Freeman still applied, as the intoxilyser statements were incomplete under the law. While she acknowledged the argument that such errors should not affect admissibility, the court concluded that Freeman could not be overruled unless it was "clearly wrong" in line with Mogul of Ireland v Tipperary (North Riding) County Council.

Justice O'Malley further explained that although Freeman was an ex tempore decision, it remained binding due to the identical facts in this case, and the court dismissed the appeal accordingly.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the DPP.

Citation: Director of Public Prosecutions v Hodgins [2024] IESC 36

About the Author: Sinéad Leahy is a Solicitor with Dermot G. O'Donovan Solicitors and is contactable on leahys@dgod.ie