The High Court has ruled that a District Court judge was wrong in law to dismiss a road-traffic charge after treating information on a breath-test statement as sufficient to rebut the prosecution’s evidence. The case was remitted to the District Court; the High Court did not determine guilt or order a conviction.
The appeal concerned a charge against John Bourke under section 49(4) and (6)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1961, as amended. The judgment says Bourke appeared at Castlebar District Court on 20 November 2002. It records that he was arrested after Garda Martin McHugh formed the opinion that he was committing or had committed a drink-driving offence, and that he provided two breath specimens when required.
An Intoxilyzer printed two identical statements recording an alcohol concentration of 39 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath. Both specimens were recorded as having been provided at 2.14am. Bourke signed the statements to acknowledge receipt and returned one to the Garda.
At the hearing, Bourke’s solicitor argued that the machine could not analyse two specimens and clear itself within 60 seconds. He also submitted that the statement should show the precise time of each machine function. At the prosecution’s request, the District Court adjourned the case for further evidence.
Catherine Pauline Leavy, from the Medical Bureau of Road Safety, later testified about the Intoxilyzer’s supply, approval and testing. She said laboratory tests had shown that two breath specimens could be obtained in under 60 seconds, with a clearing period between them, and that the machine was not programmed to report times in minutes and seconds.
The District Court judge dismissed the charge, finding sufficient rebuttal of the statement’s prima facie evidential effect. On the prosecution’s appeal by way of case stated, the High Court held that the statement’s face contained evidence consistent with and supportive of the prosecution’s case. The judge could not dismiss the charge on that basis. The High Court also said the District Court case stated did not show that Leavy’s evidence contradicted the statement or cast doubt on its accuracy; the argument that the machine could not complete the process in 60 seconds was only a suggestion.
Under the statutory presumption described in the judgment, a properly produced statement is sufficient evidence of the facts it records until the contrary is shown. The High Court stressed that even if the presumption is displaced, acquittal does not follow automatically: the court must consider all the evidence and may convict only if satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It remitted the case to the District Court for further proceedings.