The High Court ruled that oral evidence that a roadside checkpoint had been authorised was not enough to prove the written authorisation required by law, and that the District Court judge was not entitled to convict Mary Weir on the evidence presented.
Mr Justice O’Neill delivered the judgment on 29 July 2008 in an appeal by way of case stated from the District Court. Judge John Brophy had referred two questions: whether oral evidence could establish the required written authorisation for a checkpoint, and, if not, whether he was entitled to convict.
The case arose from a checkpoint at Charterschool Lands, Longwood Road, Trim, on 9 November 2006. Garda Francis Goodman stopped Weir’s vehicle and carried out a roadside breath test, which she failed. He arrested her after forming the opinion that she was under the influence of an intoxicant. At Trim Garda Station, a further test recorded 48 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath.
Weir was charged with offences under sections 49(4) and 49(6)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The District Court convicted her, fined her €500 and disqualified her from driving for one year.
At trial, Goodman gave evidence that an inspector had authorised the checkpoint. But the prosecution did not produce the written authorisation or a copy, and gave no explanation for their absence. The High Court said the prosecution had to prove compliance with the statutory requirement because it was essential to establishing that the breath-test evidence had been obtained lawfully.
The judgment said oral testimony about authorisation could serve as secondary evidence of a document’s contents only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the original was lost or impossible to produce. No such circumstances had been established. The Garda’s evidence also did not establish that the authorisation was in writing.
The court rejected the prosecution’s submission that Weir should have challenged the Garda’s evidence in cross-examination. It said the accused had no obligation to fill gaps in the prosecution case, which bore the burden of proving the matters necessary for conviction.
Mr Justice O’Neill answered both questions referred by the District Court judge in the negative. The High Court judgment does not state a separate order entering an acquittal or detail any further disposition of the District Court conviction.