The importance of blood and urine specimens
The High Court in July 2025 (the Ratinskis case) delivered a judgment on whether statutory presumptions, contained in the Road Traffic Act 2010, encompass the custody of a specimen of blood or urine in a Garda station and its subsequent transfer to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety for analysis.
It held that certificate evidence could not cover this and that the requirement of the prosecution to provide chain of custody evidence was not obviated.
Chain of custody – statutory presumptions
The Director of Public Prosecutions sought an order reviewing the High Court decision on a number of grounds.
Supreme Court – DPP v Andrejs Ratinskis
The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered on 12 December 2025, was of the opinion that leave to appeal should be granted. It was clear to the Court that an issue regarding statutory interpretation of legislation, potentially impacting thousands of drink driving prosecutions, is a matter of public importance warranting a hearing before it.
The Court noted the volume of cases brought before the District Court pursuant to the Road Traffic Act and the number of prosecutions that may be affected by the interpretation of the relevant sections of the legislation concerning presumptions of integrity of evidence. It is also a matter of public safety on the roads.
The Supreme Court went on to acknowledge that clarity on the importance of chain of custody evidence in this jurisdiction is required, and the degree to which it may be displaced by statutory presumptions.
Next step
There is no date fixed, at this stage, for the hearing of the appeal.
Legal Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. You should obtain legal advice about your specific circumstances.