The High Court has ruled that a District Court trial can proceed despite the accidental deletion of CCTV footage from a hotel car park, finding no serious risk that the loss would make the trial unfair.
In a consultative case stated, Ms Justice Mary Rose Gearty answered yes to the District Court judge’s question: whether he was correct to find that the accused was not at serious or unavoidable risk of an unfair trial. The ruling did not decide the charges or determine whether the accused was guilty. It leaves the trial judge to decide whether to admit the Garda witness’s account of what he saw on the footage and, if admitted, what weight to give it.
The charges followed a car chase in County Longford on 4 March 2016. The judgment says a silver Toyota Avensis was pursued through Edgeworthstown and surrounding areas before entering the car park at Feerick’s Hotel in Rathowen. The Garda driver briefly lost sight of it, then saw it leave the car park and stop about 60 metres down the road. The accused was in the driver’s seat, the engine was running and a male passenger was in the car.
The accused later acknowledged at the Garda station that she owned the car and had been driving. The passenger had claimed he was the driver when she was arrested. The charges included dangerous driving before and after the hotel, failing to remain at the scene of an alleged car-park collision, and driving without a licence or insurance.
The prosecuting Garda viewed the hotel CCTV before it was accidentally deleted during efforts to download it. He told the District Court that it showed the car entering the car park, colliding with a parked vehicle and leaving, followed by the Garda car. He said he could not see who was driving. The District Court judge found that the footage contained nothing of evidential value to the defence.
The accused argued that the footage might have helped her if enhanced. Justice Gearty held that the Garda’s acceptance of that possibility under cross-examination was hypothetical and did not undermine the District Court’s finding. The footage had not been enhanced, and the Garda could not identify the driver in what he had seen. The court also noted that the footage had been sought promptly and its loss was not attributable to Garda fault.
The High Court said the missing footage was not material to the defence advanced and that other evidence was available. It rejected the application to halt the trial. The ruling does not require the trial judge to accept the Garda’s account of the footage: admissibility and weight remain for that judge, who may use rulings or directions to ensure a fair trial.