The Supreme Court has quashed Michael Oates’s conviction for driving with excess alcohol in his breath, finding that the District Judge gave no reasons for refusing his defence solicitor’s request to inspect the breath-testing machine and obtain records about it.
In a judgment delivered on 29 February 2016, Mr Justice Hardiman allowed Mr Oates’s appeal from a High Court decision that had dismissed his application to quash the conviction. The Supreme Court issued an order of certiorari quashing the District Court decision. It did not decide that the machine was faulty or that Mr Oates was innocent of the charge.
Mr Oates had been convicted on 27 May 2009 of an offence under section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, following an evidential breath test at a Garda station. The charge alleged that, after driving at Elphin, Co Roscommon, on 21 July 2008, his breath alcohol concentration exceeded the statutory limit within three hours. The judgment records that a roadside test preceded his arrest.
His solicitor sought professional inspection of the Intoxilyser machine and documents concerning its calibration, installation, commissioning, testing, servicing and maintenance. The application was refused. According to uncontradicted evidence described in the judgment, the District Judge did not explain the refusal despite a specific request for reasons. He also said that a more recent case had overturned McGonnell v Attorney General, although the Supreme Court found that McGonnell had not been overturned.
The Supreme Court said the right to apply for inspection did not mean that inspection or disclosure had to be granted in every case: that remained a matter for the District Court judge’s discretion. But a person facing the charge was entitled to have such an application considered consistently with fair procedures. The judgment said a defendant did not have to identify in advance what an inspection would reveal as a condition of applying, since that could require the defendant to establish what the inspection was meant to find.
The appeal was allowed on the narrower ground that the unexplained refusal breached fair procedures. The court said the lack of reasons made it impossible to understand the basis of the decision or assess whether the District Judge had properly considered the application. The Supreme Court therefore quashed the decision; its order did not itself grant the requested inspection or documents.