The Supreme Court has dismissed Ciaran Savage’s appeal against a High Court refusal to stop his prosecution, ruling that the destruction of the car involved in a crash did not create a real risk that he could not receive a fair trial.
Mr Savage faces charges of using a vehicle without its owner’s consent and dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm. The second charge relates to a crash on 3 June 2001 in which his passenger, Debbie Mulhall, was seriously injured and later died. The Court’s decision concerned whether the prosecution could proceed; it did not determine the criminal charges.
The car was destroyed by gardaí on 25 July 2001, after it had been inspected and was found unclaimed and in a dangerous condition. Mr Savage’s defence sought to inspect it. The prosecution later said it would not rely on evidence about the car’s alleged dangerous condition.
The Supreme Court noted that reports of the vehicle’s inspection by a public service vehicle inspector and gardaí were available to the defence. Mr Savage had also obtained reports from a forensic engineer, who could give evidence about those reports and the car’s condition. The Court said the defence could use that material at trial. It was not satisfied that the car’s absence created a real risk of an unfair trial on either charge.
The judgment set out that gardaí must preserve and disclose material evidence so far as necessary and practicable, with the circumstances of each case guiding what is required. The test for prohibiting a trial is whether there is a real risk of unavoidable unfairness, rather than whether there were shortcomings in the investigation.
Although it dismissed the appeal, the Court said it would be best practice for gardaí to notify an accused person, or a potential accused, before destroying a vehicle or other evidence that may be materially relevant. Notice should give the person time to arrange an examination or make a reasonable request that the evidence be retained.