Director of Public Prosecution v Avedenei

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant was prosecuted in the District Court for an offence under section 4(4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010, namely operating a vehicle with a breath-alcohol concentration above the legal limit. Evidence of that concentration was tendered through a machine-generated “statement” produced under section 13 of the Act. The statement was in English only, whereas the Schedule to the 2011 Regulations appears to set out a bilingual (English and Irish) form.

The District Court held that the statement was not “duly completed” and referred a question of law to the High Court, which agreed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the form defective but nevertheless admissible by virtue of section 12 of the Interpretation Act 2005, characterising the omission of the Irish language text as a non-material “deviation.” The Supreme Court was asked to decide: (1) whether the statement complied with the Regulations; and (2) whether, if it did not, section 12 nevertheless rendered it admissible.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Does a statement produced under section 13 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 comply with the prescribed form when it contains only the English language portion of the bilingual Schedule in the 2011 Regulations?
2. If the form is non-compliant, does section 12 of the Interpretation Act 2005 validate it for evidential purposes on the basis that the defect is merely a deviation that does not materially affect substance or mislead?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Regulations prescribe a single bilingual form; omission of the Irish text means the statement is not “duly completed.”
• The defect is substantive, not a minor deviation; therefore section 12 of the Interpretation Act cannot cure it.
• Without a duly completed statement, the prosecution cannot avail of the statutory evidential presumption, and the charge must fail.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Schedule should be read as prescribing alternative English and Irish versions; the English-only statement therefore complies.
• Alternatively, even if non-compliant, the omission is a deviation of form only, covered by section 12 of the Interpretation Act because no information is missing and the document is not misleading.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court adopted a two-step approach:

1. Compliance with Regulations. Applying a literal reading, the Court agreed with all lower courts that the 2011 Regulations prescribe a single bilingual Schedule. Accordingly, the English-only statement was formally non-compliant.
2. Effect of Non-Compliance. The Court turned to section 12 of the Interpretation Act 2005, which preserves a form notwithstanding a “deviation” that does not (a) materially affect substance or (b) mislead. It identified the “substance” of the form as the factual data establishing the breath-alcohol concentration and procedural compliance. Every required datum appeared on the statement, and nothing in the omission of the Irish text confused, misled, or prejudiced the Appellant’s fair-trial rights.

Drawing on the extensive precedent examining defects in Road Traffic Act procedures, the Court distinguished between flaws that undermine statutory safeguards (e.g. unlawful arrest, failure to offer a specimen) and those that are purely formal. Because the present defect was merely formal and had no adverse impact on the Appellant, the Court held that section 12 validated the statement. It expressly endorsed the Court of Appeal’s characterisation of the missing Irish version as a non-substantive deviation.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Dismissed. The statement, though English-only, is admissible under section 12 of the Interpretation Act 2005, and the prosecution may rely on it to prove breath-alcohol concentration.

Implications: The decision confirms that where a prescribed form under the Road Traffic Acts omits bilingual text but contains all substantive information, the omission is a curable deviation rather than a fatal defect. It clarifies the threshold for “material” versus “formal” non-compliance and reinforces the utility of section 12 across criminal proceedings without creating new substantive rights or liabilities.