The Supreme Court dismissed Mihai Avadenei’s appeal against the use of an English-only breath-test statement in his Road Traffic Act prosecution, holding that the statement could be admitted despite a defect in its form.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice O’Malley on 20 December 2017, concerned a statement recording a breath alcohol concentration of 54 microgrammes per 100 millilitres. The Garda had entered the required details, and both the Garda and Avadenei signed the statement. The parties accepted that it contained the required factual information and followed the English-language portion of the prescribed form.
The District Court had found the statement was not “duly completed” because it lacked the Irish-language version included in the schedule to the 2011 regulations. It referred a question of law to the High Court, which agreed. The Court of Appeal also considered the statement defective, but held that the omission was covered by section 12 of the Interpretation Act 2005 because it did not materially affect the form’s substance or mislead.
The Supreme Court agreed that the regulations, read literally, required a single bilingual form. It said the court could not assume that the Irish text was intended merely as an alternative translation. The first issue was therefore resolved against the prosecution: the statement did not comply with the prescribed form.
However, the court agreed with the Court of Appeal on the consequence of that defect. The information intended to be proved was all present in the English-language statement, and the omission did not make its contents misleading, confusing or unfair. The court found no reason to exclude it and dismissed the appeal.
The judgment addressed whether the document could be admitted as evidence; it did not itself determine the underlying charge or state the result of the prosecution after the appeal.