Top Judges Restore Standard Practice in Roadside Alcohol Cases

The country's highest court has reversed a lower ruling that had thrown hundreds of motoring-while-intoxicated files into disarray.

Top Judges Restore Standard Practice in Roadside Alcohol Cases

The nation's highest court has reversed a lower ruling that had thrown hundreds of motoring-while-intoxicated files into disarray, clearing the way for prosecutions to resume their normal course.

On 11 June, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Ratinskis v Director of Public Prosecutions, a matter that turned on whether the State must demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody for bodily specimens taken from motorists.

The facts date back to 20 August 2022, when Andrejs Ratinskis was stopped at a compulsory checkpoint and did not supply a breath sample. Officers brought him to a station where a phlebotomist drew blood shortly after midnight. The fluid was split into two labelled, sealed vessels; one was retained by the accused, while the second was mailed to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety on 22 August. A document issued by the bureau on 29 August recorded a concentration of 126 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, and proceedings were initiated in the District Court.

Ratinskis's lawyers contended that the analytical report should be excluded because no testimony had been offered about where the vial was kept between sealing and posting. The trial judge dismissed this objection and found him guilty.

On appeal to the High Court, Ms Justice Sara Phelan took a different view. In a judgment dated 31 July 2025, she held that the legal assumptions contained in the Road Traffic Act 2010 did not extend to the interval between sealing and dispatch. Without proof of safekeeping during that window, she set aside the conviction and directed an acquittal.

The effect was seismic. Because specimens from outside the capital travel by ordinary post, demonstrating continuous supervision would have been unworkable. Prosecutions nationwide were put on hold.

Because of the widespread implications, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter immediately, skipping the Court of Appeal. It unanimously rejected every argument advanced by the defence.

The panel ruled that the certificate produced by the bureau—not the biological material itself—is the item of real evidence. It further held that criminal procedure does not demand absolute proof of uninterrupted custody for such evidence. The State's obligation does not stretch to ruling out every theoretical chance of tampering.

Barrister Martin Dully outlined the judgment at a Dublin Solicitors Bar Association online seminar on 17 June, noting that the ruling lifts the paralysis that had gripped the courts for almost twelve months.

Source: The Law Society of Ireland Gazette

Source: Google News IE — Crime (en)