The High Court has refused a bid to overturn a Circuit Court conviction for driving under the influence of an intoxicant, ruling that a second certificate from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety could be admitted in evidence after an earlier certificate recorded nil alcohol.
The judicial review challenge concerned a conviction under section 49(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The alleged offence occurred on 15 June 2008. The Circuit Court affirmed the conviction on 23 March 2012, and leave to seek judicial review was granted three days later.
The Bureau issued a certificate on 27 June 2008 stating that the applicant’s blood sample contained nil alcohol. A second certificate, issued on 13 August, recorded cocaine in the sample. The prosecution relied on the second certificate at trial; the first was disclosed to the defence and later put into evidence by the defence.
The applicant argued that section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 allowed only one certificate for a sample. On that view, the June certificate was the only valid one and the later certificate was inadmissible. The challenge focused on whether the statutory presumption that a certificate showed compliance with the Bureau’s procedures prevented a subsequent certificate being issued.
The respondents argued that alcohol and drug testing involved separate analyses and that the trial judge had correctly admitted the cocaine certificate. The trial judge had accepted it as valid and convicted the applicant.
Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley said certificate evidence allows the prosecution to prove specified matters without calling Bureau witnesses. Its evidential effect applies for the statutory purpose and does not give it a free-standing legal status. The first certificate had not been relied on by the prosecution for that purpose, and its disclosure and use by the defence did not make it a bar to the later certificate.
The judge said there was nothing inherently wrong with two certificates relating to the Bureau’s procedures, provided they did not materially contradict each other. She held that each certificate established compliance with statutory requirements as necessary for its own admissibility and the truth of its contents.
The court refused the reliefs sought. The judgment did not set aside the Circuit Court conviction.