Longford court hears battered jeep could not be driven as drunk in charge case is struck out

A defendant accused of the offence of being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle had the matter struck out at Longford District Court.

Gerard Farrell (50) of Ardnagarath, Walderstown, Althlone, Westmeath was prosecuted for being in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle with the intent to drive while there was present in his body a quantity of alcohol (86 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath) exceeding the legal limit on March 26, 2023 at Gurteen, Ballymahon, Longford.

Mr Farrell came before the court as he was found by Garda Claire Hardman in his upside down jeep in a ditch at Gurteen.

The officer took the defendant out of the vehicle and brought him to hospital.

Before Judge Bernadette Owens heard details of the charge solicitor Frank Gearty made an application on a technical point.

Mr Gearty said the charge the defendant is accused of, Section 5 of the Road Traffic Act, requires that the vehicle can be driven.

Defence witness, digger driver Thomas Rowan, took to the witness box to outline his involvement. Mr Rowan informed the court he was asked to pull the jeep out of the ditch. He described the location of the vehicle as “down seven feet, in a hole, on its roof”.

The digger driver said he initially went to the location with a tractor, but realised the tractor could not get the jeep out of the ditch.

Mr Rowan got a 13 tonne Hitachi digger to lift the jeep into the air and put it right side up, before he could get it on a low loader.

Prosecuting Inspector, Dave Jordan, asked the witness to describe the condition of the jeep. Mr Rowan said: “It was battered enough, and the roof was damaged.”

Mr Gearty asked if the vehicle could be driven out of place it had landed, the witness replied: “There was no way it could get back out onto the road without being lifted by a digger.”

The solicitor said the witness testimony showed there was no way the vehicle could be driven from the location and said the prosecution could not, at that late stage, change the charges against his client from a Section 5 to a Section 4.

Having considered the submission Judge Owens said she had no choice but to strike the matter out.