The Court of Appeal has ruled that a trial judge was wrong to direct a jury to find J.D. not guilty on an endangerment charge because Gardaí had not interviewed him during the investigation.
The court answered a question of law referred by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 34 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1967. Such an appeal is “without prejudice” to the acquittal. The question was whether the judge was correct in law to direct the verdict in those circumstances.
The underlying events occurred in Edgeworthstown on 15 December 2016. Two Gardaí observed J.D. driving and pursued him, during which they saw what they regarded as dangerous driving. He left the vehicle near his home and ran into nearby fields. Gardaí searched for him but did not find him.
J.D. was arrested five days later on suspicion of dangerous driving and charged with five dangerous driving counts. He made no reply after caution. In February 2017, he was charged in the District Court with endangerment arising from the same events, again making no reply after caution. He later stood trial in Longford Circuit Criminal Court on six charges: three counts of dangerous driving, endangerment, driving without a licence and using a vehicle without valid insurance.
Before evidence was heard, J.D.’s counsel sought acquittal on all counts, arguing that the failure to interview him denied him an opportunity to give his account. The trial judge separated the endangerment charge from the summary matters and directed the jury to return a not guilty verdict on that count, citing fair procedures and due process. The Court of Appeal described the procedure used for the application as unorthodox and said it was not approving it, but declined to decide the appeal on that technical basis.
On appeal, counsel for J.D. argued that the lack of an interview denied the court relevant evidence and risked forcing him to testify to present his version of events. The DPP argued that he had no identified account he had been prevented from giving and could have replied when charged, put forward an account or given evidence at trial.
The Court of Appeal rejected the trial judge’s approach. It said J.D. had no entitlement to be detained and questioned or to present an account immune from challenge. The court concluded that the judge was in error in withdrawing the endangerment case from the jury and answered that he was not correct in law to direct a not guilty verdict. The judgment states that the appeal was without prejudice to the acquittal; it does not record a replacement verdict or order a retrial.