The High Court has directed the District Court to allow Shane Ward’s appeal by way of case stated over the interpretation of a law governing Forensic Science Ireland certificates. The court found that the legal issue was not frivolous, but did not decide whether Ward’s argument was correct or whether the certificate was admissible.
Ward had been charged with possession of a controlled drug and possession of a controlled drug for unlawful sale or supply. At his District Court hearing, the prosecution relied mainly on an analysis certificate issued by Dr Sarah Martyn, an officer of Forensic Science Ireland (FSI), and signed by her as certified.
Ward argued that the prosecution had not shown that the person who certified the certificate had carried out the analysis or supervised it. His counsel relied on comments made by the Chief Justice in *DPP v AC* about the requirements for certificates under section 10 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1984. The District Court judge rejected an application to dismiss the charges and refused to refer a legal question to the High Court, considering the request frivolous. Ward was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.
Ward lodged an appeal to the Circuit Court to avoid serving the sentence while seeking a case-stated appeal. He undertook that he would withdraw the Circuit Court appeal once the High Court delivered judgment, regardless of its decision. The High Court accepted that he had lodged it to preserve his liberty and held that it was not an adequate alternative remedy that prevented judicial review.
Justice Marguerite Bolger said the High Court’s task was limited to deciding whether the proposed appeal raised an issue so devoid of seriousness that it could be refused as frivolous. She said the court was not deciding which interpretation of section 10 was correct. The comments in *AC*, an earlier District Court decision accepting a broadly similar argument, and the DPP’s previous decision to seek its own case-stated appeal on the issue all supported the conclusion that the question was serious enough to be referred.
The judge granted an order of mandamus directing the District Court to allow Ward’s appeal by way of case stated. She listed the matter for 10 July 2025 to hear submissions on the final orders. The judgment does not determine the outcome of the case-stated appeal or the underlying criminal proceedings.