The Supreme Court has dismissed Brian Perry’s appeal against the refusal to prohibit his trial on a charge of dangerous driving causing serious bodily harm. It held that he had not shown a real risk that the destruction of his car would make the trial unfair. The decision does not prevent him from raising a possible steering problem in his defence at trial.
The charge arises from a crash at about 3am on 21 June 2004 on Grace Park Road, Dublin. Perry’s Fiat Stilo overturned and came to rest partly in a house’s garden. Passenger Rebecca Elliott, who was trapped in the car, suffered serious injuries. The judgment says she will be permanently wheelchair bound.
A witness, James Higgins, said the car approached “like a bullet” and that he believed its speed would prevent it from negotiating a sharp bend. He did not identify the driver. The Supreme Court recorded that it was accepted for the appeal that a properly directed jury could convict on this evidence alone if it believed the witness and there were no evidence to contradict or undermine it. The court also noted that evidence might emerge to support another explanation for the crash.
The wrecked car was destroyed in early July 2004, after a Garda public service vehicle inspector had examined it. Perry had no opportunity to arrange his own examination. The parties disputed whether he had authorised the car’s removal and destruction. The Supreme Court did not resolve that dispute, instead assuming in Perry’s favour that the Gardaí had custody or control of the car and allowed it to be destroyed without notifying him or obtaining his authority.
Perry argued that the car might have had a steering problem. His affidavit said he felt stiffness or heaviness in the steering at times and believed a steering problem, rather than speed, caused the crash. The court considered that this did not establish a specific recollection of the steering locking during the accident. It also noted evidence that the steering column had been replaced in February 2004, although Perry disputed much of the related account and produced a workshop document confirming the replacement.
The court said an applicant seeking to stop a trial must show, through evidence or objective analysis, an unavoidable real risk to trial fairness. It found Perry’s proposed steering explanation speculative and held that he had not met that burden. It dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. The court stressed that its decision did not restrict Perry’s freedom to offer evidence at trial suggesting that the steering locked or otherwise.