The High Court has ruled that an amended breath-test statement was not duly completed under road-traffic legislation and could not benefit from the statutory presumption of compliance. The ruling answered questions referred by the District Court; it did not determine the defendant’s guilt or direct an outcome on the charge.
The case concerns a prosecution alleging that Hannah O’Connor was in charge of a car in Buncrana, Co Donegal, on 11 March 2019, intending to drive it while over the prescribed alcohol limit. The judgment records that the District Court heard evidence from both sides in March 2021.
After the breath specimen was provided, the apparatus automatically printed two identical statements. Garda Sweeney noticed that the statements cited section 4(4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010 instead of section 5(4). He crossed out the former reference, wrote in the latter and initialled both changes before signing the statements. He explained the change to O’Connor, who then signed them.
The District Judge found the error trivial, found that the amendment had not tampered with the evidence, and concluded that O’Connor had not been misled or prejudiced. The statement was admitted in the District Court. After the prosecution case, the defence sought a direction, arguing that the statement did not meet the statutory requirement to be duly completed.
The High Court held that strict compliance was required for the statement to receive the evidential presumption provided by section 20 of the 2010 Act. It rejected the prosecution’s argument that the correction could be made before the document acquired evidential status, noting that the regulations required the garda to sign after the apparatus automatically produced the statements.
The judge distinguished between a duly completed statement containing a trivial error, which may still be admissible, and an automatically produced statement altered before being tendered in evidence, which does not meet the strict statutory requirements. The court concluded that the statement in this case was not of the type contemplated by the legislation, even though the District Judge found no confusion, misleading effect, prejudice or injustice.
The High Court answered “No” to both questions referred: whether the garda was entitled to amend the statements, and whether the statement was admissible if the answer to the first question was no. The judgment proposed that O’Connor receive her costs, to be adjudicated if not agreed. The parties were given 14 days to make written submissions on costs; absent submissions, the proposed order would be made.