He justifies this, it appears, by claiming to have been acting in defence of his secretary. The uncertainty lies in the issue as to why she needed defending.
In considering the requirements of a driver accused of drink driving offences the Supreme Court has decided that the words: require the person to provide, by exhaling into an apparatus for determining the concentration of alcohol in the breath, 2 specimens of his breath and may indicate the manner in which he is to comply with the requirement” mean that a person need only, on request by a Garda officer, provide two specimens of his/her breath and need not supply […]
We see it in the abolition of an outrageous assumption; that people of power may beat up other people.
When the “Evening Herald�? published a report in December 2004 about a certain criminal case it would have been hard to foresee the actual consequence of the publication.
That this should emerge twice in the one month, in the Supreme Court is a measure of two things; the frequency with which the Gardai prematurely dispose of evidence and the sclerosis of the criminal prosecution system that it should so stubbornly cling to the determination to prosecute in cases where the accused claims to be disadvantaged in making his/her defence.
They have meaning only to medical practitioners and health care managers willing to delude themselves that they can avoid shouldering responsibility for such infections in the absence of being confronted with a video or other visual record (and therefore, presumably unchallengeable) of the mechanism of infection.
Who will interpret the confused, inarticulate replies? (Some, at least, will be such).
The people who draft legislation are unusual. The job is difficult and requires long training, experience and talent. Inevitably, mistakes are sometimes made.
There was a time when the Law Society of Ireland discharged all its functions in the corner of a car park.