The Supreme Court dismissed Jason Wall’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to prohibit his prosecution over a fatal car crash. The Court concluded that he had not established a real risk that he could not receive a fair trial. The prosecution was not stopped, and the trial judge would remain responsible for ensuring fairness as evidence emerged.
Wall is charged with intentionally and recklessly pulling the steering wheel of a car in which he was a passenger, creating a substantial risk of death or serious harm. The charge concerns a collision on Church Road, Killiney, on 14 August 2005, in which one passenger died and others were injured. The allegations have not been determined at trial.
Wall’s judicial review application argued that the State had failed to arrange fingerprint testing of the steering wheel and to preserve the two cars for inspection and examination. On appeal, his grounds also raised the failure to seek evidence about the driver’s alcohol consumption and argued that the missing evidence, along with conflicts in prosecution accounts, created a real risk of an unfair trial.
The judgment recounted that the driver initially told a witness she did not know what had happened and that the car had gone out of control. She later alleged in a cautioned statement that Wall caused the collision. Another surviving passenger recalled nothing between the start of the journey and waking in hospital. A further passenger first said he could not remember relevant events, but later alleged that Wall reached for and moved the steering wheel.
The cars were examined after the collision. A forensic collision investigator concluded there were no mechanical defects that could have contributed and that the primary cause was the driver’s failure to keep to the correct side of the road. The judgment also recorded Wall’s submission that the cars’ subsequent destruction prevented an expert inspection, and that a lack of fingerprints on the wheel could have supported his defence.
The Court said it was assessing the application in advance of trial, on affidavits and statements rather than live testimony. It noted that the prosecution witnesses could be cross-examined about the car and the collision, and that the trial judge could address the issues as evidence unfolded. Because Wall had frequent access to the car before the collision, the Court said he needed to explain why his fingerprints would not otherwise have been on the wheel, or show a probability that such evidence would be available.
The Court held that the absence of fingerprint evidence did not establish a real risk of an unfair trial; it was one factor the trial judge could consider. It affirmed the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The ruling did not determine Wall’s guilt or innocence.