The Director of Public Prosecutions v Gregory

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from a case stated pursuant to section 52 of the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 by Judge Kennedy of the District Court at Bray. The case concerns the lawful operation of Garda checkpoints for mandatory alcohol testing under the Road Traffic Act 2010, as amended. The Defendant was charged with driving a mechanically propelled vehicle while over the prescribed alcohol limit at a checkpoint established on Putland Road, Bray, County Wicklow on 27 March 2014.

Garda Teresa Hegarty conducted the checkpoint under an authorisation issued by Inspector Finnerty, purporting to authorise checkpoints at multiple locations and times over a seven-day period. The Defendant was stopped, failed a breath test at the scene, was arrested, and subsequently provided further breath samples at the Garda station confirming intoxication. The Defendant’s solicitor applied for dismissal of the prosecution on the basis that the multi-location, multi-time, seven-day authorisation was invalid as an impermissible delegation and lacked sufficient specificity as to place.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether a written authorisation issued under section 10 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, as amended, that establishes multiple checkpoints over a seven-day period at multiple locations constitutes a valid authorisation for the purposes of section 10.
2. Whether such an authorisation must specify a checkpoint location with more specificity than by reference to a road (Putland Road) over one kilometre in length.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the statutory provisions in sections 10(2) and 10(3) of the Road Traffic Act 2010, as amended, which allow a Garda inspector to authorise checkpoints in public places. Although section 10(3) appears to contemplate a single checkpoint authorisation, the court applied the Interpretation Act 2005, section 18(a), to read singular and plural terms flexibly. Thus, the authorisation may validly specify multiple checkpoints on different dates and locations within a single written authorisation.

The court rejected the argument that the multi-location, multi-time authorisation amounted to an impermissible delegation, reasoning that each checkpoint was specifically authorised by date, time, and location, and no delegation beyond the statutory scope occurred.

Regarding the specificity of location, the court acknowledged that while a road over one kilometre long might raise questions about whether it constitutes a "place," it is within the competence of the District Judge, with local knowledge, to determine whether the named location meets the statutory requirement of a "public place." The court further held that the statute does not require pinpointing a precise point on a road for checkpoint establishment, as practical considerations (traffic flow, safety, lighting) necessitate discretion for Garda members in selecting the exact site.

The court emphasized that strict construction of penal statutes does not require absurdly narrow interpretations that would elevate the rights of intoxicated drivers over public safety and legislative intent.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The court held that the written authorisation issued under section 10 of the Road Traffic Act 2010, as amended, which establishes multiple checkpoints over a seven-day period at multiple specified locations and times, is a valid authorisation for the purposes of the Act. Further, it is not required that the authorisation specify a location with more specificity than by reference to a road, provided that the road can reasonably be considered a public place within the meaning of the statute.

IMPLICATIONS: The decision confirms that Garda checkpoint authorisations may validly cover multiple locations and times within a limited period, provided each checkpoint is specifically identified by date, time, and location. It also clarifies that practical discretion is afforded to Garda officers in selecting precise checkpoint points on a named road. The ruling does not establish new precedent beyond the statutory interpretation and application to the facts before the court, but it affirms the balance between individual liberties and public safety in the context of mandatory alcohol testing checkpoints.