The High Court has ruled that a duly certified birth certificate can be used to prove a minor's age in prosecutions over the alleged sale of intoxicating liquor to an underage person, even where the alleged offence predates the evidential provision relied upon.
Mr Justice Michael Peart gave the ruling in a consultative case stated arising from prosecutions of Richard McDermott and Sheila Riordan under section 31 of the Intoxicating Liquor Act 1988.
The case followed a Garda inspection of premises on 20 April 2002. A Garda Inspector said two minors who were consuming alcohol gave their names and dates of birth. He later obtained birth certificates and sought to use them in the District Court as proof of their ages.
The defence objected. Counsel argued that there was insufficient proof linking the certificates to the minors. In one case, a father identified his son and confirmed his date of birth and birth certificate, but acknowledged that he had not been present at the birth. The other minor identified his own certificate, but neither parent was present.
The President of the District Court referred three questions to the High Court. They concerned whether a father who was not present at a child's birth could prove the child's age, whether the mother had to give evidence, and whether a birth certificate itself proved age.
The High Court considered amendments to the Registration of Births and Deaths (Ireland) Act 1863 which came into force on 1 July 2003. They provide that a certified copy or extract from the register is admissible in proceedings and is evidence of the terms of the entry unless the contrary is shown.
Mr Justice Peart held that this was a procedural and evidential change and could apply retrospectively to pending proceedings concerning the 2002 events.
He therefore found it unnecessary to answer the first two questions. He answered the third in the affirmative, subject to the statutory requirement that the copy of the birth-register entry be duly certified.