Martin v Quinn

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Henchy J.
• Judgment Date: 30 October 1980
• Neutral Citation: 1980 WJSC-SC 2844
• Docket Number: [S.C. No. 104 of 1980],(104-1980)
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 30 October 1980

1980 WJSC-SC 2844

THE SUPREME COURT

Henchy J.

Griffin J.

Kenny J.

(104-1980)

MARTIN v. QUINN

GARDA MICHAEL MARTIN

v.

THOMAS QUINN

1 Judgment of Henchy J. (Nem Diss) delivered the 30 October 1980

2 This is yet another attempt to use legal ingenuity to save a motorist from the consequences of a breach of what has come to be called the breathalyser la

3 The motorist who is the defendant in this case apparently failed to pass a breathalyser test. He was then brought to a Garda station where he was required (having elected for a specimen of urine rather than a specimen of blood) to provide a specimen of urine for Dr. Percival Griffith Patton, who was said to be a designated registered practitioner for the purpose of s. 13 of the Road Traffic (Amendment) Act, 1978("the 1978 Act"). He failed to provide it. For this failure he was prosecuted in the District Court under s. 13(3) of the 1978 Act. There he was convicted and fined £100 plus £14.36 witnesses expenses and he was disqualified from holding a driving licence for a period of twelve months.

4 He appealed to the Circuit Court and his appeal came before Judge Buchanan. At that hearing all the matters necessary for a confirmation of the conviction were proved without demur, except for one matter. The motorist's counsel contended that the prosecution had failed to prove that Dr. Patton was a registered medical practitioner. Dr. Patton himself gave evidence in the Circuit Court that he was a registered medical practitioner. The prosecution also put in evidence a certified copy of a certificate to the same effect issued under s. 25(f) of the Medical Practitioners' Act, 1978, but Judge Buchanan (rightly, in my view) held that s. 25 (which is concerned only with fees for matters such as the issue of certificates) did not authorise the issue of certificates. The issues, therefore, at the end of the prosecution case were (1) it necessary for the prosecution to prove that the person who was refused, permission to take a specimen of blood or urine was a registered medical practitioner? and (2) if so, had that matter been proved by Dr. Patton's oral evidence to that effect?

5 This case has been stated by Judge Buchanan under s. 16 of the Courts of Justice Act, 1947, for the opinion of this Court as to the answers to be given to those questions.

6 In the course of the argument in this Court, it became common case that the first question must be answered in the affirmative. Plainly the offence charged is not proved if the person who was denied by the defendant the opportunity of getting a specimen of blood or urine is not established as having been at the relevant time a registered medical practitioner.

7 As to the second question, whether Dr. Patton's oral testimony provided the necessary proof, it is agreed that a statutory mode of proof of registration is not to be found either in the Medical Practitioners' Acts 1927to 1961, or in the Medical Practitioners' Act, 1978, repealed and superseded those Acts. The question, therefore, stands to be resolved by the application of the pertinent present-day rules of evidence...