The High Court has prohibited the trial of a lorry driver charged after a serious road collision in Campile, Co Wexford, ruling that the truck’s unavailability for examination by a defence expert deprived him of a reasonable prospect of evidence to challenge the prosecution case.
In a judgment delivered on 17 January 2007, Mr Justice Charleton said the court was bound by Supreme Court authority to grant the prohibition. The decision stops the prosecution of the applicant on the charges described in the judgment; it does not determine whether he committed them.
The charges followed a collision on 9 November 2004 between the applicant’s lorry and a car driven by Alan Kavanagh. Mr Kavanagh was seriously injured. The applicant faced charges of dangerous driving causing serious harm, dangerous driving and driving with a worn tyre.
The judgment said the lorry was returned to the applicant’s employer within days and extensively repaired, including replacement of its front portion and tyres. By the time the defence sought an inspection, the truck was unavailable. The wrecked car remained available. A defence engineer said that an inspection of the truck might have revealed deposits or vehicle damage relevant to the applicant’s account, and that the missing tyre left him with no reasonable chance of refuting the evidence that it had only a millimetre of tread.
The prosecution respondents argued that Gardaí had acted reasonably and that the applicant, who had legal advice, should have sought an inspection earlier. They also challenged the timing of the judicial review proceedings, begun in December 2005. The judge set out the applicant’s burden to show a real risk of an unfair trial, but concluded that the missing truck inspection had removed a reasonable opportunity to obtain evidence capable of rebutting the case against him.
Mr Justice Charleton said the duty to preserve evidence is not unlimited, but that road-traffic cases may require a reasonable opportunity for a defence expert to inspect vehicles or relevant parts. He said the authorities should create circumstances in which such an inspection is possible, and that the defence must cooperate promptly. He suggested vehicles could be kept until charges are brought, followed by a timely opportunity for the defence to request an inspection. He also called for practical guidelines and noted that detailed photographs or video could help.
The judge directed that the registrar bring the judgment to the attention of the relevant authorities in physical form. He stressed that the ruling did not require every vehicle involved in a collision to be preserved indefinitely.