The High Court has ruled that an authenticated photocopy of a missing breath test statement can attract the evidential presumptions that apply to the original under road traffic law.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons gave the ruling on 12 April 2019 in a consultative case stated from the District Court. The question was whether the presumption under section 20(1) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 applied where the prosecution tendered a photocopy of a section 13 statement and the original was unavailable. The High Court answered: “YES.”
Anthony McGrath had pleaded not guilty in the District Court to a charge under section 4(4)(b) of the 2010 Act. The charge alleged that he drove a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while his breath alcohol concentration exceeded the prescribed limit. The High Court did not determine the charge or make a finding of guilt.
The case stated recorded that two breath specimens were taken at Blanchardstown Garda Station using an Evidenzer machine. Garda Sergeant Pat Duggan testified that the machine printed two section 13 statements, which he signed and gave to McGrath to sign. The recorded result was 74 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. Garda Conor Gurn later said the original statement kept with his case file had been lost and produced a photocopy. The District Court judge was satisfied that it was an accurate copy, and also heard Duggan’s evidence about taking the specimens and completing the original statements.
The defence argued that, although section 30 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 allowed information from an authenticated copy to be admitted, that did not automatically give the copy the statutory presumptions reserved for a “duly completed” section 13 statement. The High Court rejected that distinction. It held that section 30 gives an authenticated copy the same evidential status as the original, so the section 20 presumptions applied in this case.
Those presumptions are rebuttable. The ruling does not prevent a defendant from challenging whether statutory procedures were followed or from seeking to show that the statement does not prove the required matters. The judgment noted there was no suggestion in this case that the section 13 procedure had not been followed, and that the District Court had heard uncontroverted evidence from Duggan.
The High Court’s answer resolves the legal question referred by the District Court; it does not itself decide the underlying prosecution.