The Supreme Court refused relief to Ciaran Savage over the destruction of a motor vehicle involved in an accident, finding that the evidence did not establish a real risk of an unfair trial. The judgment by Hardiman J, delivered on 3 July 2008, formed part of the court’s consideration of the case alongside judgments by Denham J and Fennelly J.
Savage had not committed himself to a particular line of defence. Hardiman J said expert evidence from Dr Jordan did not show that losing the vehicle had confronted him with an unavoidable risk of an unfair trial. A possible defence, as described by Dr Jordan, was that the car had defects which the driver might not reasonably have noticed and which might have caused or significantly contributed to the collision.
The judgment said Gardaí had observed and recorded features of the vehicle after the accident. Those observations, Hardiman J said, could support the possible defence. He also said there was no indication that Dr Jordan was prevented from raising possibilities supported by the evidence, even though the expert could not personally inspect the vehicle.
Hardiman J said the conclusion on the risk of an unfair trial was sufficient to dispose of the case. He emphasised, however, that denying relief did not mean it had been legitimate to destroy or dispose of the vehicle. It was never legitimate to lose evidential material that might bear on guilt or innocence, he said.
The judgment accepted that the vehicle had been destroyed routinely and not to prevent an inspection for the defence. But routine practice or a failure to understand the evidence’s significance would not answer a complaint where the loss created a reasonable possibility of rebutting the case against a defendant. The test, he said, was whether there was a real risk of an unfair trial. Relief would not be granted merely to encourage general evidence-retention practices if no such risk was shown, nor refused where a real danger was established just because investigators had followed routine.
Hardiman J said the decision was neither punitive nor exoneratory of Gardaí or other investigators: the sole consideration was the right to a fair trial. He also agreed with Denham J’s “Best Practice” recommendation on custody of evidentially significant items, saying that routine compliance could prevent similar cases.