Contested drink driving case dismissed at Ballyshannon Court 

A contested drink driving case at a special sitting of Ballyshannon District Court on Monday saw a case against a 54-year-old resident from Northern Ireland, being dismissed by Judge Brendan O’Reilly.

Before the court was Jacqueline Ramsey (54) with an address of 22 Rushcroft Park Derry, Londonderry, Derry. 

The alleged offence was said to have taken place on the N15 at Sminver Ballyshannon on June 23, 2022. 

The defendant had been arrested and later charged at Ballyshannon Garda station after a breath reading had indicated that she was in excess of the legal alcohol limit.  

The court heard that the concentration of alcohol in the defendant's breath had exceeded the legal concentration limit of 22 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. 

At an earlier stage in the day’s proceedings, it had been indicated to the court that a separate case of alleged dangerous driving, relating to the same date and defendant, had been withdrawn by the prosecution. 

Gda Shane Connolly in evidence outlined the details of events which led to the arrest of the defendant, with defence solicitor Rory O'Brien insisting that while the Garda referenced his notes, he was not allowed to repeat anything that constituted hearsay.    

Garda Connolly said that he had received a report about a suspected intoxicated person driving a white Nissan vehicle at 1.15am on June 23, 2022 . He located the vehicle, which was located partially on the hard shoulder at Sminver, Ballyshannon, where he observed the defendant grab her seat belt and put it on.

Her hands were on the keys of the car and the ignition was still running.

He said that he attempted to open the door of the vehicle which was locked. However, the window was open and he put his hand in the window and turned off the ignition.

He observed that there were bottles of Heineken on the passenger floor of the vehicle. 

He said that the defendant’s eyes were glazed and she looked dishevelled. On asking for documents she produced a UK driving licence and told the Garda that she had been in Laghey and was on her way home to Derry.   

She nodded when asked if she had been drinking. He signed his notebook and formed the opinion that she was incapable of driving the vehicle and he arrested her. He gave further evidence of the defendant being brought back to the station and later being charged on foot of the breath alcohol reading. 

The Garda witness was cross examined by Mr O’Brien, who was told by the Garda that he immediately made his notes back at the station, which Mr O’Brien suggested was a “carbon copy” of his statement.

Gda Connolly said that his notes were always done the same way and were more detailed with an alleged intoxicated driver. Mr O’Brien suggested that the witness had a “tremendous ability” when it came to the detail of his notes, but the garda witness replied that he followed the same procedure in relation to all such situations. 

He was not present when Garda Norman was introduced to the defendant at Ballyshannon Garda Station, as he was in the public office at this time. When asked about the defendant he said that she was “not one bit uncooperative”.   

Garda Darren Norman gave the details of how he had attended the scene at Sminver on the night in question as well. He had observed the defendant, whom he said had stumbled when she was being put into the patrol car to Ballyshannon Garda station. He was also a trained operator of the alcohol breath machine and later took the breath test of defendant. 

At this juncture, defending solicitor O’Brien sought directions from the Judge on two issues.

One related to time of the driving of the vehicle on the night of the alleged offence and the second pertained to the order of the Garda signatures of a section 13 statement that was later given to the defendant after she was charged. 

This should have been in a specified sequential order of which no evidence whatsoever had been tendered in evidence.  

Adjudicating Judge Brendan O’Reilly said that he would not accept the submission about the sequence of the signing of the Section 13 statement, but he was dismissing the case on the basis that no evidence was given relating to the timing of the driving of the vehicle by the defendant on the night in question.