The High Court refused a judicial review application by Donnchadh Ó Cuinn seeking declarations about Irish-language versions of court rules and an order stopping a pending drink-driving prosecution. The judgment, delivered on 25 July 2018, did not decide the alleged drink-driving offence or whether the breath-test form would ultimately be admissible.
Ó Cuinn was alleged to have committed the offence on 29 March 2014. A summons dated 12 May 2014 listed a District Court appearance in Letterkenny for 13 October 2014. Those proceedings were adjourned, and Ó Cuinn obtained leave to bring judicial review in December 2014.
His case initially relied on the absence of Irish translations of several District Court rules and a 2011 statutory instrument changing the name of a ministerial department. The judgment records that the rules at issue had become available in Irish by the time a trial could take place, although one translation was not available when the judicial review began. The court said no useful purpose would be served by making the declarations sought. It also accepted the Director of Public Prosecutions’ position that the 2011 instrument was not substantively relevant to the pending prosecution. One rule cited in the original grounds was later accepted to be unrelated to criminal proceedings, and no case was pursued on it.
The second issue concerned Ó Cuinn receiving an English-only copy of the form issued after a breathalyser test. The court considered the Supreme Court’s decision in *DPP v Avadenei* [2017] IESC 77. That decision treated the omission of the Irish version as a technical departure from the prescribed form, but held that the English version could still be admitted where, on the facts, it was not misleading, confusing or unfair.
The High Court said whether the omission affected Ó Cuinn in that way would require evidence and should be assessed by the District Court at trial. It rejected a pre-emptive order stopping the prosecution on this ground and refused the judicial review. The judgment left open the possibility that language-rights concerns could arise in particular circumstances, but said any such issues would depend on the facts and should be considered at trial.