Helen McEntee (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 12, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“Amendment of section 25 of Act of 1997

15. (1) The Act of 1997 is amended by the substitution of the following section for section 25: “25. (1) In any proceedings for an offence alleging the causing of harm or serious harm to a person, the production of a certificate purporting to be signed by a registered medical practitioner and relating to—

(a) an examination of that person by the registered medical practitioner,

(b) an examination of that person by another person who was acting under the supervision, or was otherwise subject to the authority, of the registered medical practitioner, or

(c) the medical assessment by the registered medical practitioner of the medical records relating to an examination of that person,

shall, unless the contrary is proved, be evidence of any fact or opinion (including an opinion in relation to the source or effect of, or a prognosis in respect of, harm or serious harm to the person) thereby certified without proof of any signature thereon or that any such signature is that of such registered medical practitioner.

(2) A certificate to which subsection (1) applies shall include a statement as to which paragraph of that subsection applies to the registered medical practitioner who signs the certificate.

(3) In this section ‘registered medical practitioner’ means a person who is a registered medical practitioner within the meaning of section 2 of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007.”.”.

Section 25 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 provides that the evidence of certain matters may be given by certificate by a doctor in a trial for assault causing harm or causing serious harm. An element of these offences is clearly whether harm or serious harm has actually been caused. In many cases this is not a live issue at a trial and the provision allows for evidence of that harm to be provided without the doctor attending court. This statutory provision removes unnecessary barriers and delays to the conduct of criminal trials and ensures that doctors are not diverted from their work to attend in person at criminal trials. As we know, there is enormous pressure on GPs.

In 2021 the Supreme Court found that the section as currently drafted should be interpreted to be limited to certificates provided by a medical practitioner who actually carried out the examination. It also called into question the use of the section in respect of opinion evidence. The amendment will allow for certificates to be provided under a wider range of scenarios, in particular where the evidence is being provided by a supervising doctor or where it is being provided based on a medical assessment of the relevant medical records. To take an example, it would allow a specialist to provide an expert assessment of whether an injury is permanent and for this to be admissible as evidence.

It goes without saying that the ability to provide this evidence by certificate does not make the evidence conclusive. The other side may, of course, also give evidence and it will be up to a judge or jury to assess the weight of that evidence.