The Supreme Court has dismissed Mary Swaine's challenge to a dangerous driving conviction arising from a collision in which a Garda motorcyclist was seriously injured.
Ms Swaine had sought to quash the conviction on the basis that prosecutors did not disclose or call evidence from independent witness Sean Walsh before her District Court trial or subsequent Circuit Court appeal in Nenagh.
The collision occurred on 11 September 1992 near Valla Cross as Ms Swaine was carrying out a manoeuvre to turn around and collect her daughter. Garda Cullen, travelling on a motorcycle, collided with her Ford Escort and suffered very serious injuries.
The prosecution case was that Garda Cullen was travelling ahead of a second Garda motorcyclist when Ms Swaine's car moved across the roadway. The defence maintained that the second motorcyclist had already passed her car safely before Garda Cullen collided with it.
Mr Walsh had told Gardaí that he saw one Garda motorcycle pass the junction before seeing a second Garda thrown through the air. His statement was in the prosecution's possession but he was not ultimately called as a witness.
Mr Justice Geoghegan held that the decision not to call him was reasonable. The judge said the difference between Mr Walsh's account and the other evidence over which motorcycle passed first was slight and did not make him a significant witness.
More importantly, the court examined Ms Swaine's own account that she began completing her turn after seeing one of the motorcycles pass safely. Mr Justice Geoghegan concluded that, whichever Garda was first, her manoeuvre caused the collision and that the fault disclosed by her own account constituted dangerous driving.
The court accepted that prosecutors have a duty not to withhold material evidence helpful to an accused person. However, it found that Mr Walsh's evidence was peripheral rather than evidence material to the substantial issues in the case.
The appeal from the High Court's refusal of judicial review was dismissed.