The High Court has dismissed an application to stop a pending criminal prosecution over alleged theft, forgery and use of false instruments at an anonymised car dealership, ruling that questions about delay and trial fairness should be considered by the trial court.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons delivered the judgment on 29 September 2025. The applicant, identified only as S. in the judgment, is one of two co-accused. He denies wrongdoing. The prosecution alleges that, between April 2014 and June 2017, trade-in vehicles were diverted for private sale and that sales records were altered. Those allegations have not been determined, and the judgment made no findings about the criminal case’s merits or the admissibility of evidence.
The applicant argued that a fair trial was no longer possible because the dealership’s managing director, an intended prosecution witness, died on 3 August 2023. He said the director knew about and approved the transactions, and that the prosecution would be unable to prove the dealership had not consented to the vehicle sales. The director’s witness statement said he had not consented to the applicant’s actions.
The court said the trial judge was better placed to assess whether the director’s absence caused real prejudice. That would require oral evidence about the director’s role in approving transactions and consideration of the prosecution evidence, including records and other witness statements. The court said the applicant had not yet explained specifically how the director might have approved the alleged alterations to sales records, which the judgment said appeared to offer no benefit to the director or the company. The applicant could still provide an explanation at trial.
The judge also left open whether there had been blameworthy prosecutorial delay. The investigation involved more than 100 witness statements, and disclosure requirements were cited in connection with the vacation of a trial date in December 2023. The court said the available affidavit evidence was insufficient to assess whether the time taken was reasonable. It likewise left the question of whether the prosecution could prove lack of consent to the trial court, which can direct an acquittal if the necessary proof is not made.
In the rolled-up hearing, the court granted leave to seek judicial review because the grounds met the threshold of arguability, but dismissed the substantive application. It noted that the alleged events began more than a decade earlier and said a criminal trial date should be fixed as soon as possible. The judicial review proceedings were listed for submissions on costs on 14 October 2025.
The judgment bars publication of details not stated in it that could identify the accused, his co-accused or the dealership. The restrictions apply to reporting on this judgment and are due to expire when the criminal trial concludes, unless otherwise ordered.