The High Court has refused an application to prohibit the further prosecution of a man charged with dangerous driving causing death, finding he had not shown that evidence about the vehicle’s brakes was material to his defence or that its absence created a real risk of an unfair trial.
The judicial review application concerned four charges arising from a fatal road traffic accident on 10 May 2001. The applicant faced charges of dangerous driving causing death, using an unlicensed vehicle, using a vehicle without the required roadworthiness certificate and failing to use a record sheet required by EU rules.
The court said the dispute over allegedly missing vehicle evidence could affect only the dangerous-driving charge. The applicant argued that the prosecution should have kept the truck cab and trailer available for inspection. He said an independent examination might have found a fault with the trailer’s brakes that could assist his defence. The prosecution denied that the applicant had been prejudiced and argued that the vehicle had been accessible to him.
The judgment recorded that the cab and trailer were returned to the applicant’s employer after Garda examination. An unchallenged affidavit from the investigating superintendent said the trailer remained with the employer until at least 28 February 2003. The judge noted that no explanation had been given for the applicant’s failure to seek an inspection during that period.
The court said a prosecution may have a duty to preserve material evidence where its loss could put a fair trial at serious risk. But the judge was not satisfied that the applicant had established he could not have arranged an examination while the trailer remained with his employer. The applicant had not claimed that he tried to brake and found the brakes failed, or otherwise identified how their condition contributed to the accident. The possibility that an expert might discover something helpful was, on the material before the court, theoretical rather than supported by specific evidence.
The judge therefore found that the applicant had not shown he could not be guaranteed a fair trial because the vehicle was not retained or made available for inspection. The application was rejected. The court did not determine the underlying criminal charges or make findings about how the collision occurred; it said those matters, if tried, would depend on oral evidence and cross-examination. It also did not need to decide the prosecution’s separate objection that the judicial review application had been brought late.