The High Court ruled that a doctor’s certificate in a drink-driving case was not “duly completed” because it failed to state whether the sample taken was blood or urine. The court answered the first question put to it in a consultative case stated; it did not decide whether the defect required the prosecution to fail.
The case concerned a charge against Brenda Mullins of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 101 milligrammes per 100 millilitres, above the 50 milligramme limit. The alleged driving took place in Ballinteskin, New Ross, on 30 March 2013. Garda evidence in the case stated described the car swerving near Dunmaine before stopping at Ballinteskin. A doctor took a blood sample at New Ross Garda Station, and the Medical Bureau of Road Safety certificate recorded the result.
The District Court was told that the doctor’s certificate under section 15 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 left blank the space for the nature of the sample and did not delete either of the form’s alternatives, blood or urine. The defence submitted that the two omissions meant the certificate was not duly completed. It also argued that the doctor’s failure to include a Medical Council registration number invalidated the form. The prosecutor submitted that the omissions caused no confusion or prejudice, since other evidence showed that a blood sample had been taken.
District Judge Haughton referred three questions of law to the High Court. The first asked whether the two omissions identifying the sample meant the certificate could not be treated as duly completed. The second concerned the missing registration number; the third asked whether all three omissions together had that effect.
Justice Iseult O’Malley said the form’s evidential purpose was to prove what the doctor had done, including which of the two types of sample had been taken. Because the form failed to identify the sample in either of the two places provided, it could not serve that purpose or raise the statutory presumption that the doctor had complied with the relevant requirements. The court held that this was an essential omission, so the defendant did not have to show prejudice.
The High Court answered the first question yes. It answered the second no, holding that omission of the doctor’s registration number did not make the certificate void under the Road Traffic Act. Since the first answer made the third question moot, the court did not answer it. The judge also expressly left open whether the certificate’s defect was fatal to the prosecution, noting that other evidence might in some cases establish that the required procedures had been followed.