Former journalist Ian Bailey failed a drug driving test when gardaí tested him after finding a small tin of cannabis on his person during a search after he was arrested on suspicion of drink-driving in west Cork, a court has heard.
Mr Bailey (63), of the Prairie, Liscaha, Schull, denies charges of possession of cannabis, permitting the possession of cannabis in a car under his control and driving a car while having cannabis in his system at Schull on August 25th, 2019. He also denies a charge of possession of cannabis at Bantry Garda station on the same date.
Sgt Kevin Heffernan told Bantry District Court that he was operating a checkpoint in Schull on the evening in question and noticed that Mr Bailey was not wearing his seatbelt. He said that in the course of speaking to him, he detected a strong smell of intoxicating liquor.
Mr Bailey said he had a pint earlier with a meal and was tired. When he was tested at the roadside, he failed a breathalyser test and was arrested on suspicion of drink driving. He was brought to Bantry station where he took a further test, which he passed.
Small tin
However, he was found to have a small tin containing suspected cannabis on his person when he was searched at the station. He later told gardaí in an interview under caution that somebody had left the tin for him at his market stall and he assumed it was cannabis.
Gardaí took a blood sample from Mr Bailey to test for cannabis and he was found to have 2.7ng/ml for D9 Tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis) where the limit is 1ng/ml and 19.5ng/ml for 11-nor-9-carboxy-D9-tetrahydrocannabinol (cannabis) where the limit is 5ng/ml.
Judge John King adjourned the case until December 10th for written submissions after Mr Bailey’s barrister, Emmet Boyle BL, raised a number of issues over 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 submitted that under Section 13 (A) of the Road 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 offence. He argued that the opinion was formed retrospectively and the subsequent drugs test was not admissible.
