The Supreme Court dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal and affirmed an injunction restraining the continuation of a prosecution against Denis Ludlow for dangerous driving causing death. The court held that the loss of two truck tyres central to the case created a real risk of an unavoidable unfair trial.
The judgment, delivered by Denham J. on 31 July 2008, concerned a collision on a public road at Roscat, Co. Carlow, on 8 October 2002. It was alleged that Ludlow’s truck crossed onto the wrong side of the road and collided with a car driven by Darren O’Neill, who later died. The prosecution’s case included an allegation that two tyres on the truck were excessively worn.
A Garda public service vehicle inspector examined the truck at the scene, recorded tyre defects, took photographs and prepared a report. The truck, with its tyres still fitted, was returned to its owner and Ludlow’s employer on the day of the collision. The owner later disposed of the tyres. Ludlow was not the owner and did not have control of them after the crash.
The High Court had granted an injunction in July 2005, restraining continuation of the prosecution, and declared that the Director and An Garda Síochána were obliged to preserve the evidence in issue. The Director appealed. The Supreme Court considered whether the missing tyres meant there was a real risk Ludlow could not receive a fair trial, even with appropriate rulings or directions from the trial judge.
The court said the prosecution centred on the condition of the tyres and that the case could turn on their tread. The photographs and Garda statements were not adequate, in the circumstances, to let the defence assess that critical evidence through its own forensic expert. The court said Gardaí should, as best practice in a serious road accident, preserve material evidence or give the accused an opportunity to have it examined. It stressed that the judgment did not create a general rule requiring worn tyres to be preserved in every prosecution.
The court noted there was no reason to suspect the owner had acted in bad faith. However, the owner’s disposal of the tyres had deprived Ludlow of significant evidence. Finding a real risk of an unavoidable unfair trial on these facts, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court’s judgment and order. It did not determine Ludlow’s guilt or innocence.