The High Court has refused Jason Kearney’s application to stop his trial on two dangerous-driving charges, finding no real or substantial risk of injustice from the loss of his car before it could be inspected on his behalf.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the judgment on 15 July 2009. The charges arose from a collision at Philipstown, Hackballcross, County Louth, on 31 December 2006. The case was sent forward for trial at Dundalk Circuit Criminal Court.
Kearney sought judicial review, arguing that the Gardaí had failed to preserve evidence relevant to his defence. He said the scrapping of his vehicle left him unable to challenge the prosecution’s claims about the point of impact and whether his car had a defect that contributed to the collision. He sought an order prohibiting the trial or, alternatively, an injunction and a declaration that his rights had been breached.
The Director of Public Prosecutions disputed that the evidence loss created a risk of an unfair trial. The DPP relied on eyewitness testimony, photographs from the scene and a detailed inspection report, and argued that Kearney could have requested an inspection earlier.
The judgment records that Kearney’s car was examined by a Garda vehicle inspector on 3 January 2007, with no faults found. Kearney’s solicitor had sent general requests seeking disclosure and preservation of relevant evidence, but first specifically sought an inspection of both vehicles in February 2008. By then, the other vehicle was unavailable, and Gardaí could not locate Kearney’s car. A garage representative later confirmed that it had been removed and scrapped about six months after the collision. The garage director said it had been done with appropriate Garda authority, but could not identify which Garda member gave permission.
The court set out the prosecution authorities’ duty to preserve evidence capable of bearing on an accused person’s guilt or innocence, subject to limits. The missing evidence must create a real possibility that the accused cannot advance a material defence point, and the Gardaí need only take steps that are reasonably practicable. To prohibit a trial, the accused must establish a real risk of unfairness that could not be avoided through rulings or directions by the trial judge.
Applying those principles, Hedigan J. considered the claimed value of a further vehicle inspection remote and speculative. He found no evidence that a defect had materially contributed to the collision, noting the inspector’s report and other evidence cited in the judgment. He also concluded that the scene evidence and photographs were sufficient to address the point-of-impact issue.
The court refused the relief sought. It did not prohibit the trial, and the judgment did not decide the dangerous-driving charges; it held that the application had not established an unavoidable risk of an unfair trial.