The Court of Appeal has allowed the State’s appeal and sent a dispute over Irish-language legal materials back to the High Court for a rehearing before a different judge. It did not decide whether the applicant was entitled to Irish translations of the specified instruments or whether an English-only Intoxilyzer printout met statutory requirements.
The case arose after Donncha Ó Cuinn, a native Irish speaker and parish priest in Falcarragh, County Donegal, was accused of drink-driving on 29 March 2014. He denied the allegation and was defending a District Court prosecution in Letterkenny conducted through Irish. The High Court had earlier paused that prosecution while his judicial review proceedings were pending.
Ó Cuinn sought declarations concerning Irish versions of specified District Court rules and a statutory instrument, as well as the English-only Intoxilyzer printout relied on by the prosecution. The High Court granted two declarations: that the State had failed in its constitutional duties to provide Irish translations of specified court rules, and that the printout did not meet the requirements of section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 and related 2011 regulations.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal said the High Court had not explained its conclusions. It said the translation issue required consideration of the Supreme Court’s decision in Ó Murchú, including whether the applicant had shown that a particular translation was necessary to avoid prejudice in properly conducted litigation. The appeal judgment also noted evidence that Irish versions of two sets of District Court rules were available by September 2014, before the judicial review began.
The court said the printout issue likewise required analysis of the statutory requirements, whether the absence of an Irish version affected the printout’s legal validity, and whether the applicant had suffered prejudice. The High Court had not examined those questions.
The Court of Appeal stressed that a trial court must give reasons sufficient for the parties and an appellate court to understand the basis of its decision. Without them, it could not properly perform its appellate role. It therefore allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the High Court for rehearing before another judge. The judgment did not determine the underlying declarations or the drink-driving prosecution.