The High Court has refused J. Harris Assemblers’ application to stop a criminal prosecution over its sale of a lorry later involved in a fatal accident. The court found that a backlog in the Health and Safety Authority’s legal department did not adequately explain about 14 months of delay, but concluded that prohibition of the trial was not warranted.
The company is charged under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989 in connection with selling the lorry on 4 September 2003. The summonses were issued in April 2007. The prosecution is pending before the Circuit Criminal Court.
The lorry had been sold by the company to South Midland Construction Company Limited in January 2000. While owned by that company, it was involved in a fatal accident in November 2002. The judgment records that the lorry was later sold back to J. Harris Assemblers as part of a batch of vehicles, and then sold to SBC Utilities Limited. These are background events; the charges against J. Harris Assemblers remain allegations to be determined at trial.
The company argued that the prosecution had been brought too late, prejudicing its defence, and that two employees should have been cautioned before giving statements during the investigation. The prosecution argued that the delay alone did not justify stopping the case, that no specific prejudice had been shown, and that questions about the statements could be dealt with at trial.
Justice Hedigan said the delay was significant and had not been caused by the applicant. He accepted evidence that investigative work took place in 2004 and that much of 2006 was spent obtaining further evidence and directions. But the period from October 2004 to December 2005 was explained only by a backlog in the HSA legal department. The judge said that was unsatisfactory and amounted to a prima facie violation of the company’s right to an expeditious trial.
The court found no demonstrated, tangible prejudice: witnesses and documentary evidence remained available, and two employees had provided detailed recollections by affidavit. Weighing the delay against the public interest in prosecuting alleged workplace safety offences, the judge decided the delay did not justify prohibition.
The court also declined to rule in advance on whether the employees’ statements would be admissible. That issue, and any related fair-procedure arguments, were left to the trial judge, who can consider the evidence and submissions in the context of the trial. The High Court refused the relief sought; it did not decide the criminal charges.