The Court of Appeal has dismissed Anthony McGrath’s appeal in a drink-driving case, ruling that the evidential presumption under the Road Traffic Act 2010 applied to a photocopied breath-test statement tendered by the prosecution where the original was unavailable.
The appeal arose from a District Court prosecution under section 4 of the Act. The prosecution sought to rely on a photocopy of a statement generated by an Evidenzer breath-testing machine after the original certificate was apparently mislaid. The District Court judge referred the legal question to the High Court, which answered that the presumption applied. McGrath appealed that answer to the Court of Appeal.
The appeal challenged whether section 20(1) of the 2010 Act, which gives a duly completed section 13 statement evidential effect unless the contrary is shown, applied to a photocopy. McGrath argued that the section covered only an original statement, while the prosecution relied on section 30 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, which allows information admissible in criminal proceedings to be given in evidence by producing an authenticated copy.
The Court of Appeal said the case stated asked about the presumption for information on the face of the certificate. The photocopy included details of the breath-testing machine and test, the person who provided the specimen, the analysis and the recorded alcohol concentration. The court held that the presumption applied to that information and that the High Court had answered the question correctly.
The judgment separately addressed the presumption concerning Garda compliance with statutory procedures. It said the certificate was largely silent on those procedures. The court considered that issue less clear-cut, but noted that compliance was not in dispute in the District Court and appeared to have been established by evidence from Sergeant Duggan. The court described its further comments on that aspect as potentially obiter, meaning they were not necessary to answer the question referred.
The Court of Appeal answered “Yes” to the question about the photocopied statement and dismissed the appeal. The ruling addressed the circumstances of this case; it did not decide a disputed claim that Garda procedures had not been followed.