The High Court has refused an application to prohibit the trial of a man charged with driving without due care and attention, resulting in serious bodily harm, after finding he had not shown that the loss of his car created a real risk of an unfair trial that could not be addressed at trial.
The judicial review application concerned a road traffic incident on 23 May 2014. The applicant argued that gardaí had failed to preserve his vehicle, take adequate photographs of its damage, particularly underneath, or measure the accident location. He said those omissions denied him a fair trial under Article 38.1 of the Constitution.
In an affidavit, the applicant’s solicitor said gardaí had allowed his vehicle to be destroyed while apparently retaining the other driver’s vehicle. The applicant later said he had not been told before the car was destroyed that a prosecution was pending or advised to have it examined and photographed.
The State relied on a statement from Robbie O’Brien, whose account was not denied. It said the applicant attended Kenneally Panel Beating in Cahir about two weeks after the incident, tried to take parts from the car, then told O’Brien to dispose of it. The applicant handed over the vehicle log book and received €120 for the car. The judge said the reason for the destruction was immaterial to the legal test.
The applicant was charged in the District Court on 27 November 2014. He indicated on 10 March 2015 that he would plead not guilty. His solicitors sought confirmation on 27 March 2015 that the vehicles were available for inspection. An engineer later said he could not assist without seeing the car or photographs of its underside, and also cited the lack of road measurements.
Applying Supreme Court guidance on missing evidence, the judge said the central question was whether there was a real risk that trial fairness would be compromised. She found the car’s destruction was not the gardaí’s fault and that the applicant had known where it was and had an opportunity to inspect it before directing its disposal.
The judge also noted that photographs and road marks remained available, and that the forensic report and its conclusions could be challenged with suitable evidence. She said it was for the trial judge to decide what measures would prevent or minimise prejudice. The High Court therefore refused an order prohibiting the prosecution at that stage; it did not decide the applicant’s guilt or the eventual fairness of any trial.