Phil Hogan
Ceist:15 Mr. Hogan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the number of persons charged and convicted for drunk driving offences where gardaí used the alcometer; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6765/00]
Other Questions. - Breath Testing Equipment.
I am informed by the Garda authorities that the evidential breath testing equipment was introduced on 1 November 1999 and that the details of the number of persons charged and convicted for drink driving offences using the equipment since then is not readily available. The House will appreciate that since the system was introduced on 1 November 1999, many cases involving its use have not yet reached court. I am further informed by the Garda authorities, however, that a total of 308 persons were processed using the system since it was introduced and that it is being continually monitored by the Garda National Traffic Bureau.
Detailed prosecution and conviction statistics in relation to drink driving cases are published annually in the Garda Commissioner's Annual Crime Report and the latest report published is in respect of 1998. The House may be interested to know that the equipment is being used at four locations, that is, Crumlin, Pearse Street, Dún Laoghaire and Castlebar Garda stations—
Will the Minister speak a little more slowly? It is difficult to follow him.
The House may be interested to know that the equipment is being used at four locations, that is, Crumlin, Pearse Street, Dún Laoghaire and Castlebar Garda stations, and that it is expected to introduce the equipment progressively to every Garda division throughout 2000.
I should point out that the balance of drink driving suspects' blood and urine samples are being tested by designated Garda doctors in accordance with the Road Traffic Acts, 1961, as amended.
(Mayo): Is the use of the alcometer currently the subject of a court appeal?
I understand that the case has been referred back to the District Court and will be heard next week. I understand that no case has reached the High Court and that there is no case pending.
(Mayo): Is it not the case that if the courts strike down the use of the alcometer as a valid device for measuring alcohol levels, all existing drink driving cases will fall? Would it not be better if, in conjunction with the actual device, a blood and urine sample were also taken from the point of view of certainty?
The position is that the Minster for the Environment and Local Government introduced this measure as a road safety device because the Minister has responsibility for road safety. With regard to whether the alcometer could be struck down by the courts, that is a matter of conjecture. The advice available to us suggests this will not happen. We cannot try to run a criminal justice system on the basis that a measure which is introduced might be struck down by the courts for some reason or other. All we can do is take the best advice available. With regard to whether urine and blood samples should be taken after the alcometer has been used, my reply to that would be in the negative. There is provision under the Road Traffic Acts for the Garda Síochána to bring a case under the old section as it is known, that is to say, against an individual on the basis that he or she was driving while incapable. Oral evidence can be adduced from the Garda Síochána as regards the capacity of the individual to drive in that event.
(Mayo): I am not suggesting that the Garda would use the two tests simultaneously ad nauseam but only until such time as the validity of the device has been tested in the courts. That would ensure that a couple of hundred people will not walk away scot free having been manifestly under the influence of alcohol.
As I already stated, there is provision under our road traffic legislation for a case to be brought by the Garda Síochána where there is no urine or blood sample. That is a mechanism which can be used by the Garda Síochána in the event that the alcometer is struck down by the courts, but I am convinced that will not happen. The alcometer has been tested, it has been established to be effective in other jurisdictions and there is no reason it should be struck down. That is my personal view and that is the advice which is available to me, and I have to accept it.