The Supreme Court has dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions’ appeal and affirmed an order granting Denis Ludlow judicial review over the loss of tyres central to a dangerous-driving prosecution. The court did not determine the criminal charges; it held that the missing evidence created an unfair-trial risk that could not be adequately addressed at trial.
Ludlow was charged with dangerous driving causing death and summary offences after a collision near Roscat, Tullow, Co. Carlow, on 8 October 2002. The lorry he was driving collided with an oncoming Renault Scenic in wet conditions. The Scenic’s driver, Mr O’Neill, died three days later.
The prosecution case, as described in the judgment, relied on allegations that the lorry’s front right tyre and right inner rear tyre were excessively worn and that the condition could have contributed to loss of control on a wet road. The Supreme Court said the defence needed a fair opportunity to have experts examine the tyres, which the prosecution’s expert had inspected. The judgment noted that the alleged tyre tread depth was central to the case and that a fraction of a millimetre could distinguish compliance from an offence.
The tyres were returned with the lorry to its owner, Ray Snowden, on or about 8 or 9 October 2002. Snowden later said he disposed of them shortly afterwards and had not been asked to preserve them. The defence first sought information about the tyres in January 2004. In August that year, it was told they were unavailable. The judgment records that the prosecution’s specific reliance on tyre condition had been communicated in October 2003, more than a year after the collision.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court judge that there was a duty to preserve the tyres and no evidence that preservation was impracticable. It rejected the argument that Ludlow should have acted sooner, noting that the loss was not known to him until after his solicitor’s inquiries and that the prosecution did not claim prejudice from the delay. The court also said a trial judge could not cure the problem simply by directing attention to the missing tyres: the case had to be tried on the evidence actually available.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s judicial review decision. The Supreme Court dismissed it and affirmed that order; the judgment did not acquit Ludlow or decide whether the alleged driving or tyre offences occurred.