A man found apparently asleep at the wheel of a car with its engine running and a smell of alcohol coming from him must have understood what a garda meant when told he was arresting him for being "drunk in charge" of a vehicle, the High Court has ruled.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, today overturned a District Court decision dismissing the case against Prezemyslaw Czyzak on grounds his arrest was invalid.
Mr Czyzak is charged with being in charge of a vehicle at Harristown, Ballymun, Dublin, shortly before midnight on June 4th, 2013 with intent to attempt to drive it while over the drink driving limit. The concentration of alcohol in his breath was 82 micrograms per 100ml, it was alleged.
Garda Brendan Eddery had told Mr Czyzak he was being arrested for being “drunk in charge” of a vehicle but District Judge Ann Watkin ruled the arrest invalidon on grounds the Garda should have told Mr Czyzak he was being arrested for being drunk in charge “with intent to drive”.
During the District Court hearing, Gda Eddery gave evidence, when he roused Mr Czyzak from sleep and asked him where he was going, he said he was “heading home to Finglas”.
The garda said he formed the opinion Mr Czyzak was under the influence of an intoxicant such as rendered him incapable of having proper control of a vehicle. Having told Mr Czyzak he had formed the opinion he was in charge of the car with intent to drive, Gda Eddery arrested him and cautioned he was being arrested for bring “drunk in charge” of a vehicle.
Mr Czyzak had replied: “You’re joking, that’s ridiculous”, Gda Eddery said, adding he then told Mr Czyzak he was being arrested for being drunk behind the wheel of a car while the engine was running.
In his judgment on legal issues arising from the case, Mr Justice Kearns said a garda effecting an arrest in such circumstances was not required to give a detailed explanation, similar to what a defence barrister would outline in court, of the nature of the offence.
It was sufficient that a person, prior to arrest, be given sufficient information to know the nature of the offence which in Mr Czyzak’s case derived from being at the wheel of a car with its lights on and engine running and having told the garda he intended to go home without indicating any other means of getting there except by his car.
The failure to expressly state the specific offence was to be drunk in charge of the vehicle “with intent to drive” did not amount to failure to comply with the law once application of an objective test to the factual evidence was enough to establish any reasonable person must have known why he was being arrested, he ruled.
A subjective test could not be applied because accused persons would have every interest in claiming they did not properly undesrtand why they were being arrested, he added.
While a judge has discretion to rule an arrest invalid on grounds on accused did not know the reason for their arrest, there was no evidence here that Mr Czyzak did not understand why he was being arrested, he ruled.
