The Supreme Court has rejected Paul Byrne’s bid to prohibit his District Court trial over an alleged assault and criminal damage at a Centra store on Talbot Street, Dublin, after CCTV footage of the incident was no longer available.
The judgment, delivered by O’Donnell J on 17 November 2010, concerned charges arising from an incident on 7 April 2004. The store manager told gardaí that two men had tried to leave without paying for food, verbally abused staff and thrown items from shelves. Gardaí found the men at the store, where they appeared intoxicated and were still verbally abusive, according to the judgment. Byrne was arrested and later charged with assault and criminal damage. He denied the charges and pleaded not guilty, the Court said, recounting the solicitor’s affidavit.
The store had CCTV, but its system did not allow a CD copy to be made. The manager provided Garda Joseph Enright with eight still photographs. Byrne’s solicitors requested the footage in May 2004 and were told in August that arrangements were being made to transfer it for viewing. In February 2005, gardaí said it was no longer on the hard drive. The judgment records that Enright’s account of his efforts to obtain a copy was not challenged by affidavit or cross-examination.
The Court said the footage was not central to the prosecution case because witnesses, including two gardaí, placed Byrne at the scene; unlike some earlier cases, CCTV had not been the basis for identifying him. It also found Byrne’s judicial review case had not explained how the missing footage could assist his defence. The Court said the trial judge could exclude the still photographs if admitting them without the original footage would be unfair, but made no ruling on whether they should be admitted.
The Supreme Court concluded the case did not meet the exceptional threshold for prohibiting a pending trial and dismissed the challenge. The District Court trial was to proceed, with the trial judge retaining responsibility for ensuring fairness and assessing the evidence as it emerged. The ruling did not determine Byrne’s guilt or the admissibility of the photographs.
The judgment noted that the summary trial had been delayed for more than six years by the challenge. It also questioned whether judicial review should be the preferred route in summary cases, suggesting an application to the trial court might be quicker and less costly. That discussion was not an order changing the procedure.