4.1 Is é atá mar chuspóir leis an gcaibidil seo an t-eolas is deireanaí a chur ar fáil i ndáil le cásdlí a eascraíonn as ionchúisimh maidir le tiomáint faoi thionchar an óil ó eiseamal anála i rith na bliana 2006.
4.2 Thagríomar don chás Ashley McGonnell, Oliver Quinlan and John Purcell v. Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions inár dTuarascáil Bhliantúil don bhliain 2005 inar sheas an Ard-Chúirt le bunreachtúlacht fhorálacha an iontacsailíosair. Rinneadh an cás a achomharc chuig an gCúirt Uachtarach. Tugadh breithiúnas sa Chúirt Uachtarach an 28 Samhain 2006 inar díbheadh achomhairc na ngearánach. Luaigh Murray CJ "in all the circumstances, in particular conclusions that the statutory procedures for the measuring/providing of breath/alcohol levels are not disproportionate or an impermissible interference with an accused's right to a fair trial, the court dismisses the appeal".
4.3 Leagadh roinnt cásanna amach inár dTuarascáil Bhliantúil don bhliain 2005 inar tugadh aghaidh ar shaincheisteanna a tháinig chun cinn i ndáil leis an tréimhse breathnadóireachta 20 nóiméad i gcásanna maidir le tástáil fhianaiseach anála. Tugadh aghaidh ar shaincheist eile i gcás an Director of Public Prosecutions (ar agra an Gharda Shane Curran) v. Garrett Foley, O'Neill, gan tuairisciú, an Ard-Chúirt, 31 Eanáir 2006, nuair a teachtadh "no additional caution or warning is required at the commencement of the 20 minute period so as to render it lawful". Luaitear freisin sa bhreithiúnas "the information given and cautions given at the time of arrest and subsequently by the member in charge when the alleged offender is brought to the Garda station, if sufficient to render lawful the overall detention, will also be sufficient to render lawful the detention during the period of twenty minute observation".
4.4 Foráiltear in alt 17 den Acht um Thrácht ar Bhóithre, 1994 go mbeidh an deimhniú arna tháirgeadh ag an iontacsailíosar, go dtí go suífear a mhalairt, mar fhianaise leordhóthanach ar na fíricí a luaitear ann agus ar chomhlíonadh an Gharda Síochána le ceanglais an Achta. Sa chás Daniel Ruttledge v. District Judge Patrick Clyne and Director of Public Prosecutions, Dunne J, gan tuairisciú, an Ard-Chúirt, 7 Aibreán 2006, breithníodh an cheist maidir le hearráidí i ndeimhnithe alt 17. Ba é an earráid áirithe a bhí sa chás sin ná gur tagraíodh d'ainm an Gharda ar an deimhniú alt 17 seachas d'ainm an iarratasóra mar an duine a raibh an t-eiseamal anála á sholáthar aige. Ag leanúint réasúnaíocht chás Andrew Barnes, seasadh le "that an error of the kind that had been made on the certificate is one which was of such an obvious or trivial or inconsequential nature that it could not have given rise to any confusion or misleading of the accused or indeed imposed any prejudice on him or any injustice".
4.5 Sa chás John Davitt v. Judge Deery and Director of Public Prosecutions, Murphy J, gan tuairisciú, an Ard-Chúirt, 20 Márta 2006, rinneadh an cion maidir le mainneachtain eiseamal anála a sholáthar a scrúdú. Breithníodh cinneadh na Cúirte Uachtaraí i gcás Director of Public Prosecutions v. Bridget Moorehouse agus seasadh leis gur chinn Moorehouse, faoi réir alt 23, gur chruthaigh alt 13(2) cion daingean sna himthosca go léir. Dúradh sa Chúirt "it would seem clear that fault is not a requirement in order to establish that offence. Mar a luaigh Geoghegan J. i Doyle, non compliance with the requirement was enough".
4.6 I gcás an Director of Public Prosecutions (ar agra an Gharda James King) v. Christopher Tallon, bhreithnigh MacMenamin J, gan tuairisciú, an Ard-Chúirt, 28 Iúil 2006, ceist maidir le cumhacht na Cúirte Dúiche toghairmeacha diúltaithe/teipthe a leasú ina gcúisítear an cosantóir i gcion mainneachtain eiseamal anála a sholáthar "in the manner indicated by the said member of An Gardaí Siochana", agus é cinnte ag an gCúirt Uachtarach i gcás Bridget Moorehouse nach raibh cúiseamh arna fhrásáil mar sin aitheanta sa dlí. Sheas an Ard-Chúirt leis go raibh an leasú a bhí á thairiscint mar "a matter for the discretion of the District Judge which discretion should be exercised in accordance with the approach set out by Finlay P in The State (Duggan) v. Evans, and Lynch J in Director of Public Prosecutions v. Corbett".
4.7 Dhéileáil Dunne J leis an tsaincheist maidir le duine faoi dhrochamhras a bheith á choinneáil ag comhalta den Gharda Síochána nach raibh ar dualgas sula ndéanfadh comhalta eile den Gharda Síochána a bhí ar dualgas é a ghabháil i gcás an Director of Public Prosecutions v. Fergal Warren, gan tuairisciú, an Ard-Chúirt,18 Bealtaine 2006. Sheas an Ard-Chúirt gurb ionann coinneáil an chomhalta den Gharda Síochána nach raibh ar dualgas agus gabháil agus go raibh sin dleathach. Maidir leis an gceist "arrest upon arrest", rinneadh tagairt do bhreithiúnas MacMenamin J i gcás O'Mahony v. Ballagh (2002) 2IR 410, inar luadh gurb é "the key issue in relation to re-arrest was whether there was evidence of abuse of process" agus ar fhíricí chás Warren, seasadh leis nach raibh fianaise ann de mhí-úsáid próise agus dá bhrí sin ba ghabháil bhailí a bhí sa ghabháil a rinneadh ina dhiaidh sin.
4.8 I gcás an Director of Public Prosecutions (ar agra an Gharda Garry Hallinan) v. Donal Milmo Penny, bhreithnigh Dunne J, gan tuairisciú, an Ard-Chúirt, 27 Iúil 2006, an staid ina dtagann comhalta den Gharda Síochána ar an tuairim is gá chun gabháil do chion faoi alt 49 a chosaint agus go n-iarrtar ar an tiománaí tarraingt isteach ar thaobh an bhóthair agus bhreithnigh sé cibé ar treoir é sin chun cion a dhéanamh a chuir an ghabháil faoi smál nó a d'éiligh an tuairim ar thángthas uirthi faoi alt 49. Sheas an Ard-Chúirt gur "as all of the necessary ingredients were present for a valid arrest and it has never been suggested otherwise, then, notwithstanding that the Garda required the defendant to continue driving a short distance, nothing occurred which had the effect of prejudicing the defendant in any way".
4.9 I gcás an Director of Public Prosecutions v. Sean Kenny, bhreithnigh Herbert J, gan tuairisciú, an Ard-Chúirt, 13 Deireadh Fómhair 2006, an cheist maidir le feidhmiú ceart an rogha duine a chúiseamh i gcion faoi alt 50 (ar meisce i bhfeighil) ina gcúisítear cosantóir le cion in aghaidh alt 49 (tiomáint mheisciúil). Foráiltear san Acht go bhféadfar duine a chúisítear i gcion faoi alt 49 a dhéanamh a chiontú i gcion faoi alt 50. D'éigiontaigh Breitheamh na Cúirte Dúiche an cion faoi alt 49 ar aighneacht nach raibh aon fhianaise ann maidir leis an am a rabhthas ag tiomáint. Dhiúltaigh Breitheamh na Cúirte Dúiche an duine a chiontú as cion faoi alt 50 agus é ag rá gur tionscnaíodh an t-ionchúiseamh do chion faoi alt 49. Sheas an Ard-Chúirt le "there is nothing to indicate that the person upon whom the particular discretion is conferred is under an obligation to exercise it in a particular way, but it must be exercised".
4.10 I gcás an Director of Public Prosecutions (ar agra an Gharda Richard T O Connor) v. Brendan Cronin, De Valera J, gan tuairisciú, an Ard-Chúirt, 13 Samhain 2006, seasadh leis go raibh Breitheamh na Cúirte Dúiche mícheart an cúiseamh faoi alt 49 a dhíbheadh inar thug an comhalta den Gharda Síochána fianaise go raibh an cúisí "incapable of exercising" seachas "incapable of having" maidir le smacht ceart ar an bhfeithicil. Luaigh an Breitheamh De Valera "the difference in meaning between the use of the words 'exercising' and 'having' in the context of this section, and also in the context of the circumstances of the offence and the subsequent arrest, was non existent".
4.11 Sa chás John Kearney v. Director of Public Prosecutions, bhreithnigh Dunne J, gan tuairisciú, an Ard-Chúirt, 21 Nollaig 2006, an staid nuair nár insíodh don chúisí an chúis a bhí lena ghabháil in imthosca ina raibh a ghabháil á chomhrac aige agus ar mb'éigean é a shrianadh go fisiciuil. Sheas an Ard-Chúirt le "it was not unreasonable for a member of the Gardaí to concentrate on the restraint of an arrested person rather than explaining the reason for the arrest there and then in circumstances where an accused person has, by his own conduct, brought about a situation in which the Gardaí are required to use their energies to restrain him".
4.12 Tugadh isteach tástail anála randamach le halt 4 den Acht um Thrácht ar Bhóithre 2006. Níl aon chásdlí tuairiscithe go dtí seo i ndáil le tabhairt isteach na reachtaíochta sin. Tugadh aghaidh ar shaincheist a thainig chun cinn i ndáil le cumhacht gabhála i ndiaidh ceanglas faoi alt 4 a dhiultú, in alt 1 den Acht um Thrácht ar bhóithre agus Iompar 2006.
4.13 Le halt 5 den Acht um Thrácht ar Bhóithre 2006, ligfear do dhuine a ghabhálfar do thiomáint faoi thionchar an óil le léamh sa chatagóir is ísle glacadh, ar an gcéad dul síos le fíneáil muirir sheasta, agus ar an dara dul síos ordú díchailiúcháin a bheadh comhionann leis an íostréimhse a bheadh os a chomhair/a comhair dá gciontófaí é nó í i gcúirt. Níl feidhm leis an bhforáil sin fós.