Judgment: 2003-04-09 · Court archive

Supreme Court dismisses appeal over unexamined car and petrol can

The court held the applicant had not shown an arguable case that the handling of potential evidence created a real risk of an unfair trial.

The Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Gavin McKeown (Applicant)
  • Garda Conlon
  • Mark Cronin
What

The court held the applicant had not shown an arguable case that the handling of potential evidence created a real risk of an unfair trial.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • a car park
When

Judgment:

Why

Read the report below for the decision and any reasons given.

The Supreme Court dismissed Gavin McKeown’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing leave to seek judicial review over the prosecution of two charges against him.

The appeal concerned allegations that Mr McKeown assaulted Garda Conlon, causing him harm, and used a mechanically propelled vehicle without authority. The vehicle belonged to Mark Cronin. The charges remain allegations; the Supreme Court did not determine guilt or innocence.

According to the judgment’s account of the Book of Evidence, Gardaí saw Mr McKeown and a co-accused leaving the vehicle in a car park on 8 April 2001. It was alleged that Mr McKeown had been driving and later struck Garda Conlon on the head with a red petrol can.

The vehicle was returned to its owner the day after the incident without a forensic examination. Gardaí did not find the can when they returned to the scene. In March 2002, they learned from Mr Cronin that it was in his shed and collected it.

The applicant argued that the failure to preserve and examine the vehicle and can, and to make them available to the defence, breached his right to a fair trial. His solicitor had sought information about forensic tests and the vehicle’s whereabouts in February 2002. The judgment records that the defence had made no earlier request to inspect the vehicle, which had been in Garda custody after the incident.

The court said potential evidence should be preserved and made available where necessary and practicable, but the obligation must be assessed reasonably in each case. The key issue was whether the loss of evidence deprived the accused of a real opportunity to rebut the prosecution case, not whether Gardaí were at fault.

The judgment said the vehicle and can would have required timely forensic examination to yield useful evidence, and that the applicant had not shown an arguable case that their handling created a real risk of an unfair trial. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order refusing leave to apply for judicial review. The court did not decide whether the Gardaí were at fault.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review