James Power v Circuit Judge Anthony Hunt & Anor [2013] IEHC 174 (18 April 2013)

James Power v Circuit Judge Anthony Hunt & Anor [2013] IEHC 174 (18 April 2013)

There is nothing in the statutory scheme to prevent the issuance of more than one certificate under s.19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 for the same specimen, provided each certificate relates to a separate analysis (e.g., alcohol and drugs). Each certificate is admissible for the purpose of proving its own contents,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] IEHC 174
Parties
Applicant: James Power; First Respondent: Circuit Judge Anthony Hunt; Second Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application After Leave Granted
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Interpretation of Statutory Certificates, Drink and Drug Driving Offences
Criminal Law Road Traffic Law Admissibility of Evidence Interpretation of Statutory Certificates Drink and Drug Driving Offences

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Power

Applicant

Circuit Judge Anthony Hunt

First Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application After Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether only one certificate under s.19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 can be issued per specimen
  2. 2 Whether a second certificate relating to drug analysis is admissible after an initial certificate for alcohol analysis has issued

Ratio Decidendi

There is nothing in the statutory scheme to prevent the issuance of more than one certificate under s.19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1994 for the same specimen, provided each certificate relates to a separate analysis (e.g., alcohol and drugs). Each certificate is admissible for the purpose of proving its own contents, and the existence of an earlier certificate does not render a subsequent certificate inadmissible. The prosecution was entitled to rely on the second certificate (drugs) and the applicant is not entitled to relief.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Reliefs sought by the applicant are refused