The High Court has ruled that a District Court judge was wrong to dismiss a drink-driving charge because the humidity in a Garda station room was recorded at 26%, and was also wrong to refuse the prosecution an opportunity to seek an adjournment to call rebuttal evidence.
The case came before the High Court by way of a prosecution case stated, which asks a higher court to decide questions of law. The judgment does not record a conviction or determine the respondent’s guilt. It answered “No” to each of the three questions put to it about the District Court’s decision.
The charge alleged that Michael Nash drove in a public place with an alcohol concentration in his breath above the statutory limit. Garda evidence described stopping a car in St. Mary’s Park, Rathkeale, on 17 February 2010. At Newcastle West Garda Station, two breath specimens were taken using a Lion Intoxilyser. The machine produced two statements recording 58 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath, and a Section 17 certificate was produced.
The defence challenged the test after the Garda who operated the machine said the room’s humidity was 26%. The defence referred to a textbook passage giving an operating humidity range of 30% to 90%. The District Court dismissed the charge on the basis that humidity should have been at least 30%. The prosecution’s request for an adjournment to follow up whether the reading could affect the test was refused.
High Court President Kearns held that the duly completed Section 17 certificate raised the statutory presumption that its contents were sufficient evidence, unless the contrary was shown. The court found there was no evidence before the District Court questioning the machine’s reliability or the accuracy of the reading. The judgment also noted that neither the legislation nor regulations required temperature or humidity to be recorded as a condition for conviction on the certificate.
The court further held that, if the District Court had concerns about humidity or accuracy, the prosecution should have been permitted an adjournment to call expert evidence on whether humidity could affect the certificate’s reliability and, if so, to what extent. It concluded that denying that opportunity would require prosecutors to anticipate every technical issue an accused might raise.
The High Court’s decision addresses the legal questions in the case stated. The source does not record a further trial or the ultimate disposition of the charge.