The High Court has refused an application for judicial review by John Morgan, who sought maintenance records for a breath-testing machine used in a drink-driving prosecution. The court found the application premature and said he had not shown how the records would assist a particular defence.
Mr Morgan was charged in September 2008 with an offence under the Road Traffic Acts. At a District Court hearing on 6 October 2008, a request for the machine’s maintenance records was refused. The High Court judgment records that the refusal was understood to have been based on relevance; that earlier decision was not challenged in the judicial review.
A renewed request was made before Judge Mary Collins on 16 January 2009. The prosecution argued that the earlier refusal meant the issue was res judicata. Judge Collins refused the request and an application to schedule a separate hearing on relevance, indicating that disclosure issues could be raised with the trial judge.
Mr Morgan argued that he needed the records to challenge the statutory presumption that the breath-testing apparatus was working properly. The prosecution submitted that he had provided no evidence suggesting that the machine was defective and that the relevance of the records to his defence had to be demonstrated.
O’Neill J. held that, because the earlier refusal had not been challenged, the relevance issue was res judicata when the renewed request came before Judge Collins. The judge also concluded that judicial review was premature: Mr Morgan could seek disclosure at trial if he showed the records were relevant, and could ask the court to halt the prosecution if disclosure could not otherwise be ordered.
Addressing the substantive issue as an alternative, the judge said there is no absolute right to disclosure in summary cases. An accused person may seek access to material needed for a fair trial, but must ordinarily establish a basis for the request unless its relevance is self-evident. The judgment distinguished maintenance records from an inspection of the apparatus and said a request to see whether something useful might turn up amounted to an exploratory exercise.
The court refused all reliefs sought. It did not order disclosure of the maintenance records or prohibit the prosecution. The ruling left open the possibility of a renewed application at trial if Mr Morgan could show how the records related to a defence.