The High Court has ruled that breath specimen printouts must be produced in both English and Irish in order to comply with the Road Traffic Act 2010 and the (Prescribed Form and Manner of Statements) Regulations 2011 (S.I. 541/2011).
The case was referred to the High Court from the District Court by Judge Conal Gibbons.
On April 21st, 2014, Mihai Avadenei was stopped on Wolfe Tone Quay in Dublin by Gardai operating a speeding check because he was doing 80 kilometers in a 50 kilometer per hour zone. Using the Drager Alcotest apparatus Mr. Avadenei was asked to provide a breath specimen for the presence of alcohol, which he failed.
At Store Street Garda Station Mr. Avadenei provided another breath specimen using the Evidenzer Irl apparatus. The Evidenzer Irl apparatus produces a document which is tendered as a certificate in court for what would otherwise be hearsay. During cross-examination Judge Gibbons heard that the only document produced by the Evidenzer Irl was in English only, despite the fact the apparatus could produce the same document in Irish.
At the conclusion of the Prosecution's case, solicitor for Mr. Avadenei submitted that there was no case to answer because the document was not a duly completed statement as there was no equivalent in Irish.
After the case was adjourned until a later date to allow for written submissions, Judge Gibbons accepted that the document, purporting to show the concentration of alcohol in the breath of Mr. Avadenei, was not a duly completed statement.
Arising from the foregoing, Judge Gibbons asked the High Court whether he was entitled to hold that the document was not a duly completed statement within the meaning of section 13 of the 2010 Act.
Arising from the foregoing, Judge Gibbons asked the High Court whether he was entitled to hold that the document was not a duly completed statement within the meaning of section 13 of the 2010 Act.
(i) On the facts so found, was I entitled to hold that the document purporting to show the concentration of alcohol in the breath of [Mr. Avadenei] is not a "duly completed" certificate within the meaning of s[ection] 13 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 and S.I. 541/2011, namely the Road Traffic Act 2010 (s.13) (Prescribed Form and Manner of Statements) Regulations 2011?
Mr. Justice Seamus Noonan found that there are two lines of authority with regard to defective certificates in drunk driving cases:
The first can be said to arise in cases where certificate evidence is sought to be adduced in circumstances where there has been a technical error in the completion of the relevant certificate which doe not breach a mandatory statutory provision and does not result in any misleading and thus prejudice to the accused.
The second line of authority with regard to defective certificates holds that:
[...] where the relevant statute mandates the adoption of a particular procedure, a failure to adhere to that procedure will deprive the relevant certificates of any evidential value irrespective of whether or not the accused has been in any way misled or has suffered any prejudice as a result.
In the case of Mr. Avadenei, Mr. Justice Noonan took the view that the certificate falls into the second line of authority and, therefore, has no evidential value and cannot be admitted in court.
