[ad_1]
Former journalist Ian Bailey failed a drug driving test when Gardaí examined him after finding a small can of cannabis on his person during a search after he was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving in West Cork, one has heard. court.
Mr. Bailey (63), of Prairie, Liscaha, Schull, denies charges of Possession of Cannabis, Allowing Possession of Cannabis in a Car under His Control, and Driving a Car While Having Cannabis in His System in Schull on August 25 2019. He also denies a charge of possession of cannabis at Bantry Garda station on the same date.
Sergeant Kevin Heffernan told the Bantry District Court that he was operating a checkpoint in Schull on the night in question and noted that Bailey was not wearing his seat belt. He said that while talking to him, he detected a strong smell of intoxicating liquor.
Mr. Bailey said he had had a pint earlier with a meal and was tired. When he was tested on the road, he failed a breathalyzer test and was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence. They took him to Bantry station, where he took an additional test, which he passed.
Small can
However, when he was searched at the station, it was discovered that he had a small can that allegedly contained cannabis. He later told Gardaí in a warning interview that someone had left the can for him at his market stall and assumed it was cannabis.
Gardaí took a blood sample from Mr. Bailey to analyze cannabis and it was found to have 2.7 ng / ml of D9 tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis) where the limit is 1 ng / ml and 19.5 ng / ml of 11-nor -9-carboxy-D9 -tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis) when the limit is 5 ng / ml.
Judge John King adjourned the case until December 10 for written submissions after Mr. Bailey’s attorney, Emmet Boyle BL, raised a number of questions about how garda procedures were followed, including in relation to gardaí forming the opinion that Mr. Bailey had driven under the influence of Drugs
Mr. Boyle argued that under Section 13 (A) of the Highway Traffic Act, a garda was required to form the opinion that Mr. Bailey was driving under the influence of drugs at the time of the alleged crime. He argued that the opinion was formed retrospectively and that the subsequent drug test was not admissible.
[ad_2]