The High Court considered whether an error on a breath-test certificate could undermine a prosecution for being drunk in charge of a vehicle, and whether the certificate could be amended. The supplied judgment extract sets out the questions and evidence but ends before the court’s reasoning and answers. It does not disclose the outcome.
The case was stated by District Court judge Murrough Connellan after he declined to direct an acquittal. The accused, Andrew Barnes, faced a charge under section 50(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 arising from an alleged incident at Holly Park, Shankill, on 29 June 2003. The charge alleged that he was in charge of a vehicle with intent to drive while over the prescribed alcohol limit, without driving or attempting to drive it.
According to the case stated, a Garda found Barnes in the driver’s seat with the engine running and headlights on at about 1am. The Garda described his eyes as bloodshot, noted a strong smell of alcohol and slurred speech, and said he formed the opinion that Barnes was incapable of having proper control of a vehicle. Barnes was arrested at 2am and brought to Bray Garda Station.
At about 2.40am, Garda Joseph Keenan administered an evidential breath test on a Lion Intoxilyzer. The judgment says it was common ground that Keenan mistakenly entered section 49(4) as the offence for which the specimen was being taken into account, although the charge was under section 50(4). The machine recorded 66 micrograms of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath. Barnes provided two samples and signed both printed statements acknowledging receipt.
At the close of the evidence, Barnes’s solicitor sought a direction for acquittal, arguing that the certificate identified the wrong offence and that the court had no power to amend it. The District Court judge refused that application but referred two questions to the High Court: whether the typographical error was fatal to the prosecution, and whether a section 17 certificate could ever be amended to correct an obliteration or mistake.
The extract identifies statutory requirements for a statement to be “duly completed” and refers to earlier cases on statutory evidence. It stops during a quotation from a prior judgment. The High Court’s answers, any findings, and any further order are not present in the supplied material.