The High Court has refused two men’s applications to stop their criminal trials over an allegedly stolen mini-digger and trailer, finding that the missing machinery did not establish an unavoidable risk of an unfair trial.
The applicants, Ronan Byrne and Liam McKenna, brought judicial review proceedings after the mini-digger was returned to its owner and later sold. Byrne faced a charge of possessing stolen property; McKenna faced a charge of handling stolen goods. Both charges arose from an alleged incident at Julianstown, Co Meath, on 7 July 2004.
The men argued that an independent inspection could have helped them challenge the prosecution’s valuation of the machinery and prepare their defences. Their solicitor had asked gardaí to preserve it for inspection. The mini-digger was returned to its owner and later sold at auction in Scotland for £8,000 sterling. The trailer remained available for viewing.
The Director of Public Prosecutions opposed the applications, arguing that the gardaí had photographed the machinery and advised its owner to retain it. The prosecution also submitted that the applicants had not shown how the missing mini-digger prevented a meaningful line of defence. It said the valuation could still be challenged through other evidence and cross-examination.
Mr Justice Hedigan said the High Court could prohibit a criminal trial only in rare and exceptional circumstances, where the accused showed a real risk of unfairness that could not be addressed by the trial judge. He was not prepared to refuse the applications on delay grounds, and, if necessary, extended the time for bringing them to 20 June 2005.
The judge said the gardaí had acted properly in returning the valuable machine to its owner with advice that it be retained as possible evidence. He noted it was apparently sold inadvertently as part of a batch. Photographs, the Garda Inspector’s report, hire-company records and other independent evidence could help establish the machine’s condition, he said. If necessary, the trial judge could consider an application to exclude evidence or another appropriate application.
The judge also rejected the argument that a lower valuation might have led the District Court to accept jurisdiction. He said that claim was speculative and noted other possible grounds for refusing summary trial, including the alleged organised nature of the crime and the alleged stealing-to-order.
For Byrne, it remained open to challenge the claim that the vehicles were sold below market value through cross-examination or other evidence, the judge said. He also noted that McKenna had admitted knowing the vehicles were stolen. The court refused the applications, leaving the criminal trials free to proceed; it did not decide the applicants’ guilt or innocence.