The Supreme Court allowed John Stirling’s appeal and granted judicial review, concluding that his District Court trial should not proceed because police had lost CCTV footage central to the case. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 26 February 2014, found a “real and unavoidable risk of unfairness” that could not be remedied at trial.
Stirling had been charged with criminal damage and public order offences allegedly committed in the early hours of 3 March 2009. A prosecution précis said CCTV showed an offender kicking a telephone box on Aston Quay and windows and shutters at Merchant’s Arch. Garda evidence and the recording were expected to form the substance of the prosecution case. There was no eyewitness to the alleged incident.
The footage was initially reported as available, and a District Court judge ordered it furnished to the defence. About five weeks later, Garda Garrett told Stirling’s solicitor it could no longer be found. The court was told that evidence tapes at Pearse Street Garda Station were normally signed out when removed from storage, but this tape had no sign-out record. Garda Garrett said he assumed another garda investigating a different matter had taken it.
In July 2009, the District Court considered the lost footage as a preliminary issue. The judge ruled that the circumstances did not warrant stopping the trial at that point, while observing that prejudice might arise during the proceedings. Stirling then sought judicial review. The criminal proceedings have been stayed since that application.
The Supreme Court said the case was exceptional because the footage was vital objective evidence and its loss left the defence unable to test the main witness’s account of what he had seen through the surveillance camera. The missing recording could have helped assess identification, visibility, the number of people present and whether another person matched the description given to the arresting garda. Stirling maintained that he had been misidentified and asserted his innocence.
The court considered the principle that criminal trials should proceed without interruption, but held that it had to yield in these circumstances to the appellant’s constitutional right to a fair trial. It found the prejudice inevitable: the reliability of the main witness could not be tested in the most obvious way, and the omission could not be repaired at trial. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal from the High Court’s refusal of relief and granted the relief sought. The judgment does not record a determination of guilt or an acquittal.