The Court of Appeal has dismissed Osborn Irabor’s appeal against his conviction for careless driving causing the death of cyclist Mary White, upholding the jury’s verdict. The appeal challenged the trial judge’s directions to the jury and the evidence supporting the conviction.
A jury convicted Irabor on 24 October 2018 after a two-day trial. He was sentenced on 12 November 2018 to a four-year driving disqualification. The appeal was against conviction; the Court of Appeal dismissed it on 19 October 2021.
The collision happened on Burlington Road, Dublin 4, on 17 November 2014. Irabor, then a Dublin Bus driver, was turning right from Burlington Mews when the bus struck White, who was cycling along Burlington Road. White died in hospital two days later from a traumatic head injury.
At trial, a forensic collision investigator for the prosecution said the bus had cut the corner and crossed a solid white line before the junction. He said White was visible and had working bicycle lights and reflective clothing. A defence engineer described a dark area caused by a streetlight that was not working and said the bus’s pillar and wing mirror could potentially obstruct the driver’s view. He also accepted that the bus had not made the ideal turning manoeuvre. The bus’s driver-cab CCTV did not capture the collision.
Irabor’s appeal argued, among other grounds, that the judge had inadequately explained careless driving and failed to give sufficient guidance when the jury asked about the level of risk and the meaning of due care and attention. He also challenged the treatment of the defence case and the prosecution investigator’s evidence, and argued that the verdict was against the evidence.
The Court of Appeal rejected the challenges to the jury directions. It held that, read as a whole, the charge and the judge’s later answers adequately explained the offence, including that careless driving involves an appreciable falling below the standard expected of a reasonably competent driver and a risk of harm. The court said the jury was responsible for applying that standard to the circumstances. It also found the judge had properly explained the prosecution’s burden of proof and the benefit of reasonable doubt, and had fairly summarised the competing expert evidence.
The court said the jury’s assessment of evidence was for the jury, and that there was evidence capable of supporting the verdict. It rejected the claim that the verdict was perverse and dismissed the appeal against conviction. The judgment does not reconsider the sentence; the order recorded is dismissal of the conviction appeal.