The High Court has refused an application to prohibit a dangerous-driving trial, finding that the absence of the crashed car did not create an unavoidable risk of an unfair trial.
The applicant is charged with dangerous driving over a crash on Gracepark Road, Dublin, on 21 June 2004. He argued that the car’s steering had locked and that its destruction prevented an expert inspection that could support his defence. He also alleged that Gardaí had a duty to preserve the vehicle.
The judgment records that the car was examined by a Garda public service vehicle inspector, but no road test was possible because of the damage. The prosecution did not intend to rely on evidence about the car’s condition. The vehicle was later disposed of at a breakers’ yard.
Accounts differed over who authorised the disposal. A salvage-yard manager said the applicant had told staff he did not want to see the car again and understood it could be destroyed. The applicant denied authorising its destruction. A former passenger, who said she owned the car, also disputed aspects of the manager’s account and said she had tried to recover it. The judge found there had been confusion over the instructions and no evidence of a deliberate attempt to destroy evidence to prevent its use.
The judge noted that the applicant’s solicitors first asked that the vehicle not be disposed of in January 2006. The crash had occurred in June 2004, and the applicant had been summonsed in February 2005. The court was not satisfied that Gardaí were to blame for the car’s destruction and considered the delay in seeking an inspection excessive.
An eyewitness had said the car was travelling at great speed before it struck a house wall and overturned. The judge said the witness could be cross-examined at trial and that the applicant had not meaningfully addressed this evidence in his application. The court concluded that a trial judge could deal with any evidential deficiencies and that the missing car did not mean the applicant could not receive a fair trial.
The application for judicial review was refused. The ruling did not determine the dangerous-driving charge; the trial may proceed.