EXPLAINER: Why are drink driving cases with blood samples in Limerick not being heard in court?

LAST WEEK, 17 cases of drink or drug driving were not heard at a  Newcastle West District Court sitting, as they involved blood samples.  

This is because of a ruling from the High Court in relation to the case of DPP v Ratinskis, which is now being appealed by the DPP in the Supreme Court.

In that case, the security of the sample and the chain of custody was not detailed in court evidence. 

At the end of July last year, 2025, Ms Justice Sara Phelan found that a garda witness failed to prove how a blood sample had been stored in the time between securing the sample at a garda station and sending it to the Medical Bureau of Road Safety.

This ruling mandated that gardaí must not only prove that a sample is posted, but evidence must also be provided about the integrity of the sample and the chain of custody before it reaches the destination for medical analysis. 

The DPP has since appealed the High Court decision and a decision is awaited from the Supreme Court. 

READ ALSO: West Limerick community rally to raise funds for community first responders in memory of local man

The Newcastle West cases, have been adjourned now until July, while countless other cases are also being held up in district courts across Limerick city and county, as well as the rest of the country.  

Solicitor Padraig Langsch is involved in the DPP v Ratinskis case and he explained what this means for the court hearings and for the public. 

He said: “There are a huge amount of cases impacted and all of it depends on the Supreme Court decision. 

“Some of them may be withdrawn, but my view is that all of them will have to be heard and it will lead to a significant backlog.”

The solicitor is based in offices on  Bedford Row in the city.

He  explained that the initial High Court case related to the prosecutor proving the full chain of custody for blood or urine samples from when a garda collects the sample, right up until it is analysed in the Medical Bureau of Road Safety. 

Mr Langsch said that the road traffic legislation contains presumptions, which start once the garda posts the sample to be tested. 

He said that DPP v A McD is often cited, but that sometimes “this is used correctly or it can be taken out of context.”

Mr Langsch added that another element of the High Court case is that it leaves it open to the prosecutor possibly having to prove who within the postal service handled the package, as it was being delivered to be tested by the medical bureau. 

A lot of the case hinged on a garda failing to give evidence on where a sample was stored.

Mr Langsch added that this could stretch much further than drink driving cases. He said that it is possible that it could impact cases involving CCTV, if a question arises about a third party possibly having access to CCTV, which will be relied on as evidence in court, as integrity is compromised.  

Mr Langsch said that the Supreme Court have yet to reach a decision, but that “it is reasonable to assume the Supreme Court will want to decide the case within a reasonable timeframe.”