NEW: Drink Driving Case Dismissed Despite Blood Alcohol Reading of 305 — Here’s Why

Turn every page...

Meta Description: A woman was acquitted of drink driving after recording a blood alcohol level of 305mg. Learn how the case collapsed due to a critical Garda procedural error.

You’d be forgiven for thinking there was no way out.

She crashed. Her car landed on its roof. She admitted drinking two bottles of wine. Her blood alcohol reading was 305 — more than six times the limit for professional drivers, and over three times the standard legal limit.

Most people would have given up.

But that would’ve been a mistake.

"He said: “I have not heard evidence that a treating doctor

had been consulted.”

That, he said, was the end of the matter"

Because in Ireland, a drink driving conviction isn’t just about the result on the certificate. It’s about whether the prosecution followed every legal step correctly. And in this case, they didn’t.

What Happened

My client, Miss H, had collided with two parked cars. When Gardaí arrived, they found her injured, disoriented, and visibly intoxicated. She admitted she was the driver. She admitted she had been drinking. She was taken to hospital for assessment.

At the hospital, the Garda called for a designated doctor — the official term for the specific doctor required by law to take a blood sample in drink driving cases under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 2010.

But what happened next unraveled their entire case.

The Legal Error That Ended It All

Gardaí spoke first to an on-duty doctor. That doctor said she was fit to provide a blood sample.

But that doctor wasn’t the one treating her.

Under Section 14(1), Gardaí are required to consult the treating doctor — not just any doctor — before making a demand for a blood or urine sample.

The designated Garda doctor later arrived and took the blood sample.

That sample was the one that tested at 305.

The State believed it had an open-and-shut case.

Until I filed a Freedom of Information request with the hospital.

Their internal records revealed something critical:. The Garda never consulted the right doctor — because there wasn’t Miss H had never been seen by a treating doctor before the sample was taken one.

That meant their demand for blood was legally invalid.

The judge agreed.

He said: “I have not heard evidence that a treating doctor had been consulted.” That, he said, was the end of the matter.

The State panicked and blurted out that that they "had a witness in court who had seen the accident take place", the judge calmly replied that unless that witness had been in the hospital while the blood sample was being taken, their evidence was irrelevant.

The case was dismissed.

Why This Matters

This wasn’t a “technicality.” It was the law doing what it’s supposed to do — protecting people from overreach and shortcuts.

Gardaí have a legal duty to follow procedure.

When they don’t, the entire case can collapse.

These events are just mistakes. The Gardai are human after all and make mistakes like the rest of us. I make plenty of them every day.

Most people — including many lawyers — assume that once a high reading is recorded, conviction is inevitable.

But that’s not true. In every case, the court must be satisfied that the Gardaí complied with every essential legal proof.

If they didn’t, that creates reasonable doubt. And if there’s doubt, the judge must give the benefit of the doubt to the defendant and must acquit.

If You Take One Thing From This

It’s not about what you drank. It’s about what the Gardaí did — or didn’t do.

If you're facing a drink driving charge, don’t assume the worst.

What matters is whether the case can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And sometimes, what looks like a hopeless case… isn't.

After all, it’s the choice between going off the road or driving home.

And everybody wants to drive home.