The Supreme Court allowed A.C.’s appeal on the interpretation of section 25 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, holding that a medical certificate used under the section must be provided by the registered medical practitioner who carried out the examination or supervised it.
Chief Justice Donal O’Donnell delivered his judgment on 3 November 2021. He agreed with the conclusion of Mr Justice Woulfe, whose judgment gave a fuller account of the facts. The judgment identifies the prosecution as the People, at the suit of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and A.C. as the appellant.
Section 25 allows a certificate relating to an examination of a person, and purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner, to serve as evidence of facts stated in it unless the contrary is proved. The question in the appeal was whether the certifying doctor needed to have conducted or supervised the examination.
The challenged certificate concerned examinations at the Mater Hospital on the evenings of 19 and 20 June 2016. It was provided by Professor O’Brien, who, according to the judgment, had not conducted the examinations or been present when they took place. The appeal concerned whether that certificate could be relied on under section 25; the judgment says it was not produced to express an opinion on the nature of the harm, though it included the phrase “likely permanent long term damage”.
Chief Justice O’Donnell said the section was ambiguous when read in context. He concluded it was intended to let a doctor give evidence by certificate rather than attend court to testify, not to allow a practitioner with no direct involvement to certify matters outside their personal knowledge. He also noted that the section gives the opposing party no opportunity to cross-examine the certifying doctor and contains no procedure to require the doctor’s attendance.
The judgment also addressed the kind of information a certificate may contain. Chief Justice O’Donnell said it may explain clinical notes in terms understandable to a jury, but should be confined to factual matters observed during the examination. In his view, an opinion about the severity of harm is for the jury to determine and cannot itself be certified as a fact under section 25.
The judgment records that the Circuit Court and Court of Appeal had reached different conclusions on the section’s meaning. It does not set out the Supreme Court’s formal order beyond stating that the appeal on this issue must be allowed.