The High Court has refused an application to prohibit a trial on a charge of dangerous driving causing death, ruling that the loss of two vehicles for defence inspection did not establish a real risk of an unfair trial.
In a judgment delivered on 11 July 2006, Mr Justice Diarmuid B O’Donovan said Gardaí had failed to preserve the vehicles after the applicant’s solicitors asked that physical evidence from the collision be retained. They also failed to tell the defence they might be destroyed. The judge described this as a “very grave omission” and urged Garda authorities to investigate how it happened to prevent a similar situation arising.
The applicant sought judicial review to stop a trial on one charge arising from a 27 April 2003 collision at Stephenstown, Knockbridge, County Louth. The prosecution case, as summarised in the judgment, was that the applicant’s car crossed onto the wrong side of the road around a bend and collided with an oncoming vehicle. A passenger in the applicant’s car, Liam McCartney, died from his injuries.
The applicant argued that an independent engineer could have examined the vehicles for evidence about collision speed, damage, seat belts, possible defects, interference with the driver’s control and tyre marks. The engineer’s report said photographs could clarify some matters but were a poor substitute for direct inspection. The judge accepted that an examination might have revealed more about the collision, including its speed or angle, or a defect in either vehicle.
However, he said the engineer had not suggested that an inspection might contradict the available evidence. The judgment records evidence that the applicant had said he took the bend too fast and that the passenger had reached for the steering wheel. An inspector who examined both vehicles found no mechanical defect that might have contributed to the collision. The judge also referred to evidence that the applicant was extremely intoxicated at the time.
The Director of Public Prosecutions had opposed the application on several grounds, including that it was brought outside the three-month time limit and that an inspection would not assist the defence. The judge extended the time limit, finding a good reason for the applicant being about three weeks late. He also held that delay in seeking an inspection did not, by itself, bar relief.
The applicant separately relied on the death of Paul McGauley, another passenger and potential defence witness. The judge found that McGauley’s death in an unrelated incident did not justify stopping the trial. He said there was no relevant evidence for McGauley to give about the collision and was not persuaded that the prosecution had delayed progressing the charges.
The court dismissed the judicial review claim. It did not determine the applicant’s guilt; the trial was the subject of the application to be stopped.