Animal Remedies Act, 1993

Methods of tests or analyses.

9.—(1) (a) For the purpose of establishing whether or not any substance or combination of substances consists of or contains an animal remedy or an ingredient for an animal remedy, the Minister may—

(i) prescribe one or more than one particular method of test or analysis for the purpose of detecting specified substances, each which method shall be known as an approved method of test or analysis,

(ii) prescribe any person or body (whether corporate or unincorporate) for the said purpose as an approved person or body (in this section referred to as “an approved person or body”) for the carrying out, either generally or for any specified method of test or analysis (whether or not an approved method of test or analysis).

(b) In prescribing any particular method of test or analysis as an approved method of test or analysis, the Minister shall specify the level at which (in this section referred to as the “specified level”), or the result by which (in this section referred to as the “specified result”), the method shall be considered to have identified the presence of the substance or combination of substances concerned.

(2) As soon as is practicable after receipt of a substance or combination of substances by an approved person or body from or on behalf of—

(a) an authorised officer,

(b) a member of the Garda Síochána,

(c) an officer of Customs and Excise, or

(d) such other class or classes of persons as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Minister for the purposes of this provision,

that person or body shall analyse the substance or combination of substances, or a sample thereof, to detect whether or not it consists of or contains a specific substance or specific substances.

(3) Where an approved method of test or analysis is used and the outcome of the test or analysis is that the specified level or the specified result, as the case may be, was obtained, any person who could be affected by that outcome by way of the institution of criminal proceedings or by seizure of any thing may be served in the prescribed manner with a notice of the outcome, and that person may, within the time limit prescribed for that method of test or analysis, challenge the outcome.

(4) Where a person has challenged the outcome of the test or analysis (hereinafter in this section referred to as “the first method of test or analysis”) to which subsection (3) relates of a substance or combination of substances, or a sample thereof, then in each case the substance or a sample thereof may be submitted, in a prescribed manner (if any), to a different method of either test or analysis (hereinafter in this section referred to as “the second method of test or analysis”) which may or may not be a prescribed method of test or analysis by an approved person or body.

(5) Where, subsequent to a person (hereinafter in this subsection referred to as “the first-mentioned person”) challenging in accordance with subsection (4) the outcome of the first method of test or analysis—

(a) (i) the first-mentioned person is convicted of an offence in respect of which the outcome of the first method of test or analysis was relevant, or

(ii) the court concerned orders the seizure, disposal or destruction of any thing which relates to the substance detected by the first method of test or analysis,

then the court shall, unless it is satisfied that there are substantial and special reasons for not so doing, order that there be paid, in respect of the costs incurred by or on behalf of the State, or paid or to be paid by the Minister or prescribed person (if any) to a person or body, for the second method of test or analysis, the amount of those costs by the first-mentioned person to the Minister or prescribed person, as the case may be, or

(b) the first-mentioned person does not contest within such time limit as is specified in regulations made under section 8 the seizure, in accordance with regulations so made, of any thing which relates to the substance detected by the first method of test or analysis, then, in respect of the costs incurred by or on behalf of the State, or paid or to be paid by the Minister or prescribed person (if any) to a person or body, for the second method of test or analysis, there shall be paid by the first-mentioned person the amount of those costs to the Minister or prescribed person, as the case may be, which amount may be recoverable as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

(6) (a) Any document purporting to be made by or under the authority of an approved person or body, and signed by such a person or by a person with the authority of such a body or sealed with the seal of such a body where the body is a body corporate, which certifies—

(i) that an approved method of test or analysis specified therein has been carried out for the purpose of detecting any substance so specified, and

(ii) that—

(I) the specified level has been reached or the specified result has occurred, as the case may be, for the said approved method of test or analysis, or

(II) the presence of that substance has been detected,

shall, subject to paragraph (b)

(A) be sufficient evidence in any proceedings of the matters so certified and that the substance has been detected by that method of test or analysis, unless the contrary is shown, and

(B) be sufficient evidence in any proceedings without proof of the signature of any person who so signed or, where such a body is a body corporate and its seal has been affixed to such a document, without proof of the seal and of the signature of any person purporting to be present when the seal was affixed, unless the contrary is shown.

(b) Where both a first method of test or analysis and a second method of test or analysis have been carried out on the same substance or a sample thereof, paragraph (a) shall not apply unless a document to which that paragraph relates has been tendered in evidence in the proceedings concerned in respect of each test or analysis.

(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prevent from being admissible in evidence the outcome of a method of test or analysis which is not a test or analysis to which subsection (6) relates.

(8) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 8 , the Minister may prescribe such matters, including incidental and consequential matters, as appear to the Minister to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of implementing the provisions of this section.

(9) In this section “prescribed” means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister.