The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by A.C. in a case about the use of medical certificates in criminal trials. In a judgment delivered on 3 November 2021, Mr Justice Woulfe held that a certificate under section 25 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 must be prepared by the medical practitioner who carried out the examination it relates to.
The appeal arose from A.C.’s 2018 trial at Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court. A.C. faced charges of assault causing harm and assault causing serious harm arising from an incident at licensed premises in Dundalk on 19 June 2016. The prosecution alleged that A.C. struck the injured party in the head or face with a bar stool, causing a significant eye injury.
The prosecution sought to use a certificate signed by Professor Colm O’Brien. It summarised ophthalmology clinical notes from examinations on 19 and 20 June 2016, which Professor O’Brien had not conducted. The certificate also included an opinion that the injury had caused “likely permanent long term damage”. The defence challenged its admission.
The trial judge excluded the certificate. A directed verdict of not guilty followed on the serious-harm charge. A.C. was convicted of assault causing harm and sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment, suspended for four years subject to conditions.
The Director of Public Prosecutions referred a question of law to the Court of Appeal, which held in December 2020 that the trial judge was wrong to exclude the certificate because its signer had not personally examined the injured party. The Supreme Court granted A.C. leave to appeal that ruling.
Justice Woulfe concluded that section 25 was ambiguous about which practitioners could sign certificates. Reading it alongside the related assault provisions, he said its purpose was to allow a practitioner to certify their own examination records, avoiding the need to give oral evidence about routine findings. It did not permit one practitioner to certify another’s records.
He also addressed whether the section permits opinions to be certified. Although that issue was not directly within the question referred to the Court of Appeal, he said section 25 covers facts recorded on examination, not opinions such as a future prognosis. He described those remarks as not determinative of the appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the trial judge was correct to exclude the certificate and allowed A.C.’s appeal. The judgment concerned the certificate’s admissibility; it did not reverse the conviction for assault causing harm or alter the sentence described in the judgment.