The Supreme Court dismissed Jason Wall’s appeal against a refusal to prohibit his trial over a fatal car crash in Ballybrack, finding that the absence of fingerprint testing on the steering wheel did not require the prosecution to be stopped.
The judgment, delivered by O’Donnell J. on 11 December 2013, concerned a judicial review challenge brought before trial. Wall argued that the Gardaí’s failure to take fingerprints from the crashed car, and its release before testing, created a real risk that he could not receive a fair trial. The Supreme Court’s majority rejected the appeal. The ruling allows the trial to proceed; it does not determine whether Wall is guilty.
The crash occurred in the early hours of 14 August 2005 on Church Road, Ballybrack, County Dublin. Emma Wall, a passenger and Jason Wall’s cousin, died from her injuries. Two other occupants gave statements alleging that Jason Wall, who was in the rear seat, reached between the front seats and grabbed the steering wheel, causing the driver to lose control. Those accounts were to be tested at trial, with witnesses giving evidence under oath and facing cross-examination.
O’Donnell J. agreed with MacMenamin J.’s judgment, while noting that Hardiman J. reached a different conclusion. O’Donnell J. considered fingerprint evidence potentially less conclusive than a test capable of positively excluding an accused person. Jason Wall had been a regular passenger in the car, and his own affidavit said his fingerprints might be expected on the wheel. In O’Donnell J.’s analysis, an absence of prints would show only that none had been found; without evidence that the alleged act would necessarily leave detectable prints, it would not establish that Wall had not touched the wheel.
The judgment also recorded that the car’s interior had been extensively damaged, that the vehicle was inspected on 17 and 23 August, and that it was scrapped by 29 August at the latest. Lindsay Hudson’s statement alleging that Wall grabbed the wheel was made on 18 August. O’Donnell J. described it as unfortunate that fingerprints were not sought after that statement, but did not consider the investigation grossly deficient or seriously negligent. He also referred to other defence arguments, including the failure to test Hudson for alcohol consumption, the likely absence of the other car’s driver, and earlier statements that did not implicate Wall.
O’Donnell J. used much of his judgment to raise broader questions about how Irish courts handle claims involving missing evidence before trial, including whether judicial review is the right procedure and how the applicable test should be framed. He expressly described those observations as obiter: they were not argued in the case and did not decide those wider questions. His operative conclusion was that the circumstances did not require the trial to be prohibited.