The High Court has ruled that a District Court judge should have allowed the prosecution to give evidence about when a complaint was made in a road traffic case, after the defence specifically raised the six-month time limit.
The case concerned Adam Roche, who appeared before the District Court on 6 February 2013 charged with an offence under section 4(4) and (5) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. The alleged offence was said to have occurred on 1 June 2012. A summons had issued on 8 August 2012.
At trial, the prosecution evidence included Sergeant Patrick Dowd’s account of observing Roche driving, stopping him and administering a roadside breath test, which he failed. Garda Killian McAteer gave evidence about the Evidenzer machine and its result. The High Court judgment records that no issue arose in the appeal about the arrest or that evidence.
After the prosecution closed its case, the defence sought a direction, arguing there was no evidence that a complaint had been made to an authorised person within six months of the alleged offence. The prosecution asked to reopen its case so Dowd could give evidence of the date he applied for the summons. District Judge Anne Watkin refused, treating the missing evidence as substantive rather than formal, and dismissed the summons.
The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed by way of case stated. The High Court considered whether the time limit was an essential element the prosecution had to prove in every case, or a matter for the defence to raise. Justice Iseult O’Malley held that it was a matter of defence: the prosecution had no burden to prove compliance unless the issue was specifically raised. Once raised, the District Judge was obliged to inquire into it, and the prosecution was entitled to call evidence if it could.
The judge accepted, for the purposes of this case, that the defence could raise the issue after the prosecution had closed. She expressly left open whether it should instead be raised before then. She also said the decision did not turn on whether the missing evidence was a matter of form or substance.
The High Court answered “No” to all three questions posed by the District Judge: whether the summons ought to have been dismissed for lack of evidence, whether she was correct to refuse reopening, and whether the case was correctly dismissed on that basis. The judgment addresses those procedural questions; it does not determine the road traffic charge or state what happened after the case stated appeal.