“Beyond the Seal” – Ratinskis v. DPP [2025] IEHC 428 and the New Requirement to Prove Chain of Custody in Intoxicated-Driving Prosecutions

1. Introduction

Andejs Ratinskis sought judicial review of a District Court conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant. The conviction had been secured on certificate evidence pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 2010 (“RTA 2010”), relying on the statutory presumptions in ss.15, 17 and 20. The pivotal question was whether those presumptions extend to the custody of a sealed blood specimen in the period between its taking in a Garda station and its dispatch to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety (“MBRS”).

Ms Justice Sara Phelan held they do not. Because the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence of where or how the specimen was held for roughly 24 hours, the statutory certificate could not bridge that evidential gap. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the conviction and confirmed that judicial review—rather than an appeal de novo—was an appropriate remedy in circumstances where the prosecution would otherwise be able to “mend its hand”.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Statutory Presumption Limited – The presumptions in ss.15(4), 17(4) and 20 RTA 2010 do not cover proof of continuous custody or integrity of a specimen after sealing. They extend only to the procedural facts expressly listed in the subsections.
• Burden on Prosecution – Where there is no statutory presumption, the ordinary rules of proof apply. The State must call chain-of-custody evidence and cannot shift that burden to the accused by inviting cross-examination.
• Failure of Proof → Conviction Quashed – Because Garda evidence did not account for storage/security between 00:37 hrs on 21 Aug 2022 and posting on 22 Aug 2022, the conviction was unsafe and certiorari issued.
• Judicial Review Appropriate – An appeal to the Circuit Court would have allowed the State to supplement its case; therefore judicial review lay to prevent such a “second bite at the cherry.”
• Wider Implications – All drink- or drug-driving prosecutions that rely on certificate evidence must now adduce chain-of-custody proof unless and until the Oireachtas amends the statutory scheme.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. DPP v. AMcD [2016] IESC 71
   • McKechnie J emphasised that where no statutory presumption exists, the State must prove provenance and authenticity of CCTV “real evidence”.
   • Justice Phelan analogised a blood specimen to CCTV footage: absent a specific presumption, custody must be proved.
2. DPP v. Collins [1981] ILRM 447
   • Henchy J: suggestion of gaps does not discharge the accused’s burden when a presumption applies.
   • Ratinskis limits Collins by clarifying that the presumption here never arose in relation to custody, so no burden shifted.
3. DPP v. Walton (1998, HC ex tempore)
   • Morris P upheld reliance on the presumption where another Garda forwarded the sample.
   • Justice Phelan distinguished Walton: that analysis assumed a presumption regarding custody which, she now holds, does not exist.
4. Power v. Hunt [2013] IEHC 174 and DPP v. Cullen [2014] IESC 7
   • Both explain the limited purpose of certificate evidence: to admit hearsay facts but not to prove all surrounding circumstances.
5. Hobbs v. Hurley (1980) & DPP v. Corrigan [1980] ILRM 145
   • Discuss meaning of “as soon as practicable” but do not decide custody question; Ratinskis goes further, holding integrity must still be proved.
6. Constitutional & procedural authorities – Fawsitt, Bowes, Griffin, Heather Hill – used to show that misconstruing a statute constitutes jurisdictional error reviewable by certiorari.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court began with text-based statutory interpretation. Applying the strict-construction principle for penal statutes (Kiernan; Avadenei), Justice Phelan found no wording in ss.15, 17 or 20 that presumes (a) secure storage or (b) absence of interference post-sealing.

She rejected the State’s argument that the red seal = presumption. The Act refers only to sealing the containers, not to what occurs after. To imply such a presumption would contradict the dictates in Heather Hill that courts must not infer unwritten legislative intentions.

“…there was thus a gap in the evidence adduced in the District Court… Yes, there is a presumption that the designated doctor or nurse sealed the container but the presumption goes no further than this.” (¶36–37)

Because the presumption never arose, the prosecutorial burden never shifted. The Garda’s silence on storage location, access, temperature, etc. left a material evidential void. On that basis the applicant’s motion for a direction in the District Court should have succeeded.

3.3 Impact and Prospective Significance

• Immediate Effect – Any District Court conviction reliant solely on certificate evidence without custody proof is vulnerable to challenge.
• Evidential Practice – Gardaí must be prepared to testify (and document) where, how and by whom a specimen is held prior to postage/delivery. Station custody logs, evidence lockers and signature trails will gain renewed prominence.
• Legislative Response Possible – The Court explicitly invited the Oireachtas to clarify the statutory presumptions if an administrative burden is feared (¶73). A short amending act could extend the presumption to custody, though constitutional limits on shifting burdens in criminal trials may constrain such reform.
• Judicial Review Jurisprudence – The decision endorses use of judicial review to prevent prosecutors from bolstering weak evidence on appeal, refining the “alternative remedy” doctrine in line with Tallon.
• Comparative Context – Many common-law jurisdictions (e.g., England & Wales) already require explicit chain-of-custody proof notwithstanding statutory certificates. Ireland now aligns more closely with that evidential orthodoxy.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Certificate Evidence

Written forms/statements made admissible by statute which, although hearsay, can be accepted in court without the author giving oral evidence.

Statutory Presumption

A legal shortcut: if the prosecution proves certain basic facts, the court presumes additional facts to be true unless the defence produces evidence to the contrary.

Chain of Custody

The documented and unbroken transfer of evidence from collection to analysis, ensuring it has not been tampered with.

Judicial Review vs. Appeal

Judicial review looks at the lawfulness of the process (jurisdiction, fairness, legal error). An appeal re-hearses or re-tests the merits. Here, review was used to avoid giving the State a fresh opportunity to fill evidential gaps.

“Mend its hand”

Colloquial expression meaning a party is allowed to repair defects in its case on a second attempt, considered unfair in criminal prosecutions.

5. Conclusion

Ratinskis v. DPP recalibrates the evidential landscape of intoxicated-driving prosecutions. The High Court confirmed that the statutory scheme does not create an “evidence-proof” bubble around sealed specimens. The Garda seal is only one link in the chain; the rest of the links must be proven in open court.

The judgment strengthens defendants’ procedural protections and obliges prosecutors to respect traditional rules of real-evidence provenance. Its reasoning is firmly anchored in constitutional principles, strict statutory interpretation and the broader jurisprudence on certificate evidence. Unless legislation is amended, future prosecutions under the RTA 2010 must incorporate full chain-of-custody testimony—or risk being, like the sample in this case, “invalidated”.