Director of Public Prosecutions (at the suit of Garda Robert O'Grady) v Robert Hodgins (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Respondent was convicted in the District Court of driving with a breath-alcohol concentration exceeding the statutory limit contrary to section 4(4) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. During the evidential breath-testing procedure a Garda signed two machine-generated statements after the Respondent, contrary to the sequence mandated by section 13 of the 2010 Act and the 2015 Regulations. The conviction was appealed to the Circuit Court, which stated a case for the Court of Appeal on whether it was bound by the Supreme Court decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Freeman. The Court of Appeal held that Freeman remained binding. The Appellant (the prosecution) then appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the later decision in Director of Public Prosecutions v Avadenei required a different approach.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sequencing error (Garda signing after the driver) rendered the section 13 breath-alcohol statements inadmissible under section 20 of the 2010 Act.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should overrule its earlier judgment in Freeman in light of the analytical framework set out in Avadenei.
3. The circumstances in which the Supreme Court may depart from its own precedent on questions of statutory interpretation.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• Freeman should be overruled; its strict approach to sequencing is inconsistent with the broader analysis in Avadenei.
• The error caused no prejudice to the Respondent’s fair-trial rights; admissibility should therefore mirror the approach to evidence adopted in People (DPP) v J.C. and People (DPP) v Quirke.
• The principles in Attorney General v Ryans Car Hire Ltd. permit the Court to revisit and correct an earlier erroneous decision.

Respondent's Arguments

• There is no conflict between Freeman and Avadenei; the latter dealt with a defective printed form and its relevant comments are obiter.
• Under the doctrine of stare decisis, lower courts (and the Supreme Court absent compelling reason) remain bound by the ratio of Freeman.
• The statutory scheme confers evidential status only on a statement “duly completed in the prescribed manner”; failure to comply with the sequence is fatal irrespective of prejudice.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court framed the dispute as one of statutory interpretation, not constitutional rights. The 2010 Act confers hearsay-exemption status only on a breath-alcohol statement “duly completed” in the “prescribed manner.” The sequencing requirement appears in both the primary legislation and the 2015 Regulations.

The Court accepted that an alternative, purposive interpretation (treating sequencing as non-essential where both signatures are present) was arguable. Nevertheless, overruling Freeman required a finding that it was “clearly wrong” under the criteria in Ryans Car Hire and Mogul. Several considerations led the Court to refuse to do so:

• Nature of precedent: Freeman directly addressed the identical statutory text and factual matrix; it has guided trial practice since 2014.
• Legislative acquiescence: The Oireachtas re-enacted the sequencing requirement in 2015 without modification, suggesting acceptance of the strict approach.
• Penal element: Refusal to sign is itself an offence; therefore, a driver’s obligation arises only when the Garda has already signed, reinforcing the mandatory character of sequencing.
• No demonstrable error: While strict, Freeman was not “clearly wrong” in law; it simply placed the case at the “far end of the spectrum” of insistence on statutory formality.
• Rule-of-law considerations: Stability and predictability in statutory interpretation outweigh any perceived harshness where the legislature can amend the provision if desired.

The Court therefore concluded that the statement, signed in the wrong order, was not “duly completed” and was inadmissible. As Freeman remains good law, the trial judge must exclude the statement.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The Supreme Court declined to overrule Freeman; the sequencing error renders the breath-alcohol statements inadmissible. The Respondent’s acquittal in the lower court stands, and trial courts remain bound to exclude section 13 statements not signed in the prescribed order. The decision maintains, rather than alters, precedent and leaves any reform to the legislature.