The High Court has refused to prohibit the trial of Anthony Leahy on a charge of dangerous driving causing death, ruling that the loss of two tyres from the car did not establish a real risk that he could not receive a fair trial.
Mr Justice Charleton delivered the judgment on 5 February 2010 in a judicial review application. Leahy argued that the tyres’ disappearance prevented him from fairly contesting evidence about skid marks and the car’s speed. The court’s decision concerned whether the trial should be stopped; it did not determine whether Leahy was guilty.
The prosecution’s case, as summarised in the judgment, was that Leahy was driving too fast when his car struck and killed George Johnson on the main street of Roundwood, Co Wicklow, on 4 November 2007. A passenger said Leahy was travelling at about 25 miles per hour and that Johnson stumbled from the pavement into the car. Other witnesses described a loud impact, and one said a car appeared to be travelling quickly through the town.
A Garda collision investigator calculated a speed of about 72 kilometres per hour from CCTV footage in a 50 kilometre-per-hour zone. He also estimated a pre-skid speed of 66 to 78 kilometres per hour from skid marks. The judgment noted that the defence disputed whether those marks came from Leahy’s car. The investigator also said he had found recent locking marks on its front tyres.
The car had been moved from the yard where Gardaí stored it. By the time the defence sought to inspect it in March 2009, it had been stripped to its shell by a private individual who had apparently sold parts without Garda authorisation. The tyres were no longer available. The judge said their destruction occurred through no fault of An Garda Síochána.
The court held that the prosecution had other evidence available, including an inspection report on the car, CCTV footage, skid marks and the investigator’s calculations. The defence could challenge that material through cross-examination or its own expert evidence, and could question the investigator’s interpretation of the tyre marks. The judge said the loss of the tyres could be used to challenge the basis of that opinion.
Applying the requirement that an accused show a real risk of an unfair trial, the court concluded that the missing tyres were not enough to meet that burden. The application to prohibit the trial was refused. The judgment did not decide the underlying criminal charges.