A man’s drink driving conviction was rightfully reversed as the police officer in charge mistakenly signed two statutory statements post the accused, rather than prior, according to the Supreme Court’s majority verdict. The appeal motion by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was denied since a 2014 Supreme Court verdict bound by ‘letter of the law’ was applicable in this situation.
Out of the five-judge panel, three concurred with the 2014 ruling which was conveyed orally by a three-judge Supreme Court panel, implying the statements couldn’t serve as admissible evidence due to this error. Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley, representing the majority, emphasised that the policeman’s procedural mistake had unquestionably no bearing on the defendant’s right to a fair hearing.
While the 2014 judgement is viewed by the court as stretching the literal interpretation of the law, she did express her reluctance at its application being widened to other differing cases through analogy.
Although there was the possibility of interpreting the legislation and regulations differently from the 2014 ruling, she maintained its interpretation couldn’t be blatantly labelled ‘wrong’. She further stressed that the conditions needed to overrule a decision made by the Supreme Court had not been met in this appeal. This sentiment was also shared by Mr Justice Brian Murray and Mr Justice Maurice Collins.
However, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan, backed by Mr Justice Peter Charleton, diverged, categorically stating that the 2014 ruling was unquestionably errant and hence, the Supreme Court was within its rights to deviate from it.
Mr Justice Hogan critiqued the 2014 three-judge panel for their lack of interaction with preceding authorities and their verdict being in polar opposition with principles established in previous as well as subsequent legal precedents. In this current appeal case, he concluded favouring the DPP and considered the incorrectly sequenced statute as a ‘slight technical blunder’ and an insignificant mistake.
The court was asked by the DPP’s appeal to clarify the legal implications of an admitted failure by a Garda (Irish police officer) in correctly finalising two identical breathalyser machine statements as per the required procedure. The officer failed to sign the statements in the presence of the accused as dictated by the 2010 Act, but did so moments after the accused instead.
The mistake was made prior to the individual in question being found guilty by the District Court for driving under the influence, in contradiction to sections 4(a) and (5) of the 2010 Road Traffic Act. The allegation was that the individual had a breath alcohol content exceeding the legal limit of 22 micrograms per 100 millilitres within a span of three hours post driving.
The convicted man lodged an appeal, prompting a Circuit Court judge to inquire from the Court of Appeal as to which Supreme Court ruling he should adhere to. The verdict came out in favour of the 2014 oral judgment, which the Supreme Court has since upheld.
The court’s leading judgment, given by Justice O’Malley, highlighted the court’s authority to overturn its previous decisions, if it believes the judgment was faulty.
In the appeal, while the DPP acknowledged a violation of statutory procedures, it argued that the court, when determining the admissibility of the statement, should consider if the officer’s mistake affected the fairness of the trial or resulted in any prejudice. The court was urged to prefer the documented ruling by a five-judge Supreme Court panel in 2017 over the 2014 verbal judgment.
Justice O’Malley concluded that the 2017 judgement was not an attempt to overturn any previous rulings, and the details of the 2014 case paralleled the current appeal. She observed that the legislature hasn’t addressed the court’s suggestion to arrange for the handling of minor errors like this. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by her.