A motorist with an “extraordinarily high” drink drive reading after downing vodka from a 7Up bottle has avoided jail for crashing into a cyclist, instead receiving a five-year driving ban and a €1,500 fine after pleading guilty to drunk and careless driving.
Rebecca Griffith, 34, of Blackheath Park, Dublin, was heading toward Artane in her Opel Astra when she struck the 34-year-old cyclist riding in the bus/cycle lane from behind on the city’s Malahide Road. The impact sent him flying over the handlebars and ended up on the road.
Another cyclist assisted him in getting up. He suffered bruising and a concussion from the collision and was taken to the hospital in an ambulance, where he underwent a CAT scan and received a tetanus injection.
The injuries caused the cyclist to miss work for two weeks, and his expenses were €700. In a victim impact statement, he said he was now nervous while cycling, felt vulnerable on the roads, and suffered from occasional flashbacks, while also suffering from ongoing pain and discomfort.
Griffiths, who works as an environmental scientist at Trinity College, had finished work at 3pm on 17 August 2023, the day of the incident and was visiting her sister. After a row broke out, Griffith purchased a bottle of vodka and poured it into a 7Up bottle, which she drank from while behind the wheel of her car.
Police officers immediately noticed in the aftermath of the crash that Griffith had consumed alcohol; the sample she provided revealed a reading of 407mg of alcohol per 100ml of urine — over six times the legal limit of 67mg in Ireland.
DublinLive reports that the defence counsel Emmett Nolan told Judge Grainne Malone his client was lucky not to have caused serious injury and was facing a more severe charge. The defence acknowledged the drink-drive reading was quite “extraordinarily high”, and it had been obvious to gardaí in the aftermath that she had consumed alcohol.
Mr Nolan stressed that although his client was “highly educated and travelled”, she suffered from a bad alcohol addiction and had been drinking the night before the incident. On the day of the collision, she had been working, surveying at Trinity College, and finished at 3 o’clock.
A letter from her doctor confirmed she was on antidepressant medication. Counsel explained that the driver’s drinking problem began several years ago when she worked in a well-known late-night eatery in Dublin, and staff would have drinks after closing time.
The court heard she used alcohol as a coping mechanism, but her family hoped that she would abstain from drinking and engage with services to help her deal with the issue. Pleading for leniency, the barrister had asked the court to treat it as an aberration by a young woman who made a significant error in her life but otherwise had a lot going for her.
Griffith had no previous convictions and was going to counselling. Ahead of sentencing, a probation report was ordered along with a request for information about the compensation awarded in the civil proceedings.
At a previous hearing in October, the driver also issued an unreserved apology through her barrister and in a letter brought to court, and offered the cyclist €2,500 as a “token of remorse”.






















34 thoughts on “Motorist avoids jail after crashing into cyclist while six times over drink drive limit and drinking vodka from 7Up bottle”
I have sympathy with
I have sympathy with alcoholics. Both my parents were alcoholics, one essentially dying from it and one who beat it.
But…. the driving thing takes away any sorrow I feel for this criminal. Should be a custodial sentence, even if only for a week in a horrid facility. That would be more of a deterrent than the old slapped wrist and a ban.
joe9090 wrote:
Quite – alcoholics are suffering from a disease. However choosing to drive whilst drunk is a purely selfish thing to do and anyone who does that needs to be locked up to protect the public from them.
The alcoholism should have no
The alcoholism should have no bearing on this case, positive or negatively.
The crime is the lack of consideration for any other life by operating a motor vehicle under the influence.
What should impact negatively is that she knowingly attempted to hide her alcohol consumption by disguising the drink in a 7Up bottle. Regardless of whether she was trying to hide her compulsion to drink, or the act of drink driving specifically, by decanting into another bottle demonstrates that she understood what she was doing was wrong and continued regardless.
People have the choice to drink OR drive, if addiction compels her to the former, she made the choice to drive illegally anyway
One thing that bothers me is
One thing that bothers me is the use of antidepressant med and driving, it never gets picked up by police. Most of these types of medicines state on the prescription do not drive or use heavy machinery whilst using.
Festus wrote:
Not correct – most commonly prescribed SSRI’s dont impact driving and impaired ability is a fairly rare side effect.
From experience of being
From experience of being prescribed citalopram there is an advisory caution for driving and using machinery in that reactions may be impaired. I do both without any impairment with the only side effect of lightheadedness and little impulse shocks if I don’t take them as prescribed i.e. forget to take them over a couple of days. Obviously others may react differently to that and different medications
ROOTminus1 wrote:
Disagree – its fundamentally what this case is about – her choices were quite clearly the habits of an habitual addict.
She in a properly working society she should be offered the choice of a custodial sentence or a residential alcohol addiction course.
Amazed she wasn’t given a
Amazed she wasn’t given a gentler slap on the wrist. Ireland is fantastically poor at taking dangerous driving seriously.
Probably celebrated not being
Probably celebrated not being sent to jail though.
Is it any wonder that drink
Is it any wonder that drink driving is still a problem when the police do nothing even with clear evidence like this:
https://youtu.be/hw071PAofHQ
Not really relevant though…
Not really relevant though…. the above story is from a different country.
A sad case, and one with no
A sad case, and one with no winners. The driver can thank her lucky stars that the cyclist wasn’t more seriously injured and that the court was sympathetic to her illness, and perhaps this is the wake up call that could change her life.
The cyclist suffers from nerves around traffic and flashbacks, and we can only hope that they fully recover in time, but an horrific experience, as I know myself. They can at least get recompense for their injuries and any continuing treatment.
More than six times over the
More than six times over the legal limit? She’s the winner here. Her punishment is insufficient.
That’s one way of looking at
That’s one way of looking at it, but not particularly charitable. She’s ill and needs treatment, not punishment.
eburtthebike wrote:
She’s ill and needs treatment and punishment for selfishly endangering other people. It’s not like she didn’t know that drunk-driving is dangerous and illegal.
eburtthebike wrote:
Not sure about that Burt, she definitely needs treatment as well as punishment but surely simply being an alcoholic should not confer a free pass for breaking the law and endangering the lives of others? What would we say if someone committed domestic violence under the influence of alcohol because they were an alcoholic, should they not be punished either? We need severe punishments for drink-driving in place as a deterrent and they surely have to apply to everybody; rehabilitation and treatment for alcoholics should definitely be ordered/provided by the legal system but not as a replacement for sanctions that anybody else would have to face. Alcoholism is an illness, I agree, but what would we say about people with other illnesses who chose to drive when they were not fit, somebody who knew they were susceptible to seizures or somebody who was partially sighted? There is also the problem of classifying and identifying alcoholics, not suggesting it’s being made up in this case but what’s to stop any drunk driver claiming alcoholism and asking for sympathy and treatment instead of punishment?
Rendel Harris wrote:
The law metes out punishment because society expects it. Its deterent effect is low and its mostly a pointless excercise if the desire is actually to prevent further offending.
Where underlying problems exist then there is far more benefit to society in treatment – despite what our ugly baser natures may want. This applies whether its drunk driving or drunken domestic assault.
Besides – who says treatment is in any way pleasant, for addiction it can be extremely unpleasant. How is that in any way a “free pass”?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Thanks, that’s what I was trying to say.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
If there is no deterrent effect, why have drink-driving deaths fallen by approximately 95% since it was made illegal? Has the citizenry become almost universally more sensible and responsible people of their own accord?
A mixture of deterrence and
A mixture of deterrence and peer pressure. Younger generations are less likely to drink and also have been brought up with the DES culture.
Agree – it seems (as often) a
Agree – it seems (as often) a range of factors have changed things such that we are where we are – and there’s broad agreement that the policing / penalty side did contribute to that. (Although noting that “drunk in charge” has been illegal since 1872, and further laws were passed in 1925, 1930, 1960, 1962 and defined in terms of a specific blood alcohol concentration already in 1967!)
However – now we have achieved a significant reduction (85% reduction in drink-drive fatalities from the start of “accurate monitoring” in 1977 – 2018 apparently) what effect does the “crime” side have? I think it’s fair to assume (but also to ask the question) that is still required. However it is not necessarily the case that simply “more police” or “more punishment” will necessarily improve things futher.
PACTS have a good review on this – looking at policy 2010-2020 and what effects that had, and ways which we might reduce the over 100 deaths every year further.
Couldn’t find the
Couldn’t find the breathalyser sketch, so this one will have to do
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqxXNZcIdwM
Rendel Harris wrote:
Making it socially unacceptable had far more impact
https://www.ias.org.uk/report/a-brief-history-of-drink-driving-policy/#:~:text=In%20the%20UK%2C%20concerted%20efforts,nation's%20first%20drink%2Ddriving%20limits.
From your own link there:
From your own link there:
I wouldn’t disagree at all that publicity campaigns can be extremely effective in making illegal behaviours socially unacceptable. However there is, and will always be, a substantial percentage of the population who couldn’t give a damn if their behaviours are socially unacceptable or not and for whom the prospect of being caught and sanctioned is the only deterrent.
Agreed, but in the UK we have
Agreed, but in the UK we have policing which to a greater or lesser extent relies on assistance from members of the public. So part of that deterrent effect is knowing that they may get nicked because it is so socially unacceptable that other people inform the police – pushing the odds of detection up substantially!
But yes, while the “fear of the law” (even if in practice the odds of getting detected are low / punishments light) may keep most in line there are always some who need proof…
That of course is where both the scale of the penalty and the odds of getting caught AND then convicted are weighed. In the case of many road offenses the former times the latter are little times almost none times not high…
in the UK we have policing
in the UK we have policing which to a greater or lesser extent relies on assistance from members of the public…
in obeying Police Doublethink by not reporting offences which the police definitely don’t want to know about because they’re not real offences. Those who fail to observe these unwritten laws are guilty of thoughtcrime and are Enemies of the State
Rendel Harris wrote:
— Rendel HarrisThe deterrent effect is almost certainly due to the massively increased likelihood of the offence being detected. As with other crimes, if the criminal assumes that they won’t be caught, punishment is no deterrent. Since it seems to be ineffective in preventing crime, we should be asking why society does it, and why it doesn’t do the things that actually work, like education and training.
“Pleading for leniency, the
“Pleading for leniency, the barrister had asked the court to treat it as an aberration by a young woman”
She’s 34 FFS!
The sentence does seem rather
The sentence does seem rather light. I hope the victim sues the driver heavily and wins a massive payout. The insurance firm would cover this but it’d then make it very hard for the driver to get insurance cover again. You do have to ask whether lifetime driving bans should be introduced for people so irresponsible as this.
Tbh my main issue here is why
Tbh my main issue here is why the ban doesn’t also include medical restrictions
I.e. getting a licence back in 5 years should require suitable medical professional confirming alcoholism is under control (and or alcohol interlocks on vehicles etc)
And that any driving while disqualified = long term jail sentence (though this should apply to all cases, as well as automatically being considered a risk for bail etc as they have proven they won’t obey courts…)
qwerty360 wrote:
Getting car insurance ought to be as onerous as any other kind of insurance, and possibly require a medical.
(As an example, my employer tried to get “keyman” insurance on me. And failed. The insurer wanted access to a medical report from my GP and the fact that thirteen years ago my GP had told me I drank too much alcohol (at that time) was enough for them to refuse to insure me.)
How the actual F can you NOT
How the actual F can you NOT go to prision for drinking vodka WHILE DRIVING A CAR!!??
How the actual F can you NOT
How the actual F can you NOT go to prison for drinking vodka WHILE DRIVING A CAR!!??
Easy- by doing it in the UK (even though this one was in Eire)- because the real punishment is being the victim of having to live with what you did (KSI-ing a cyclist) while bravely carrying on your life as if nothing had happened
And the next time – plead
And the next time – plead sympathy for your addiction, caused by trauma from your previous “accident”…