The Court of Appeal has dismissed Martin Feehan’s appeal against his conviction for dangerous driving causing serious harm to a passenger in his van, Bríd Hallihan. The judgment, delivered on 29 March 2022, addressed conviction only; it did not decide the appeal against sentence.
Feehan had been convicted by a jury on one count under section 53 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The charge arose from a multi-vehicle collision on 16 February 2015 on the road between Mallow and Cork at Glencaum, Grenagh, County Cork. Hallihan was very seriously injured.
The prosecution alleged that Feehan was travelling too fast in a lane that was ending and could not yield to a lorry in the adjoining lane. It said he lost control and crossed into oncoming traffic, causing collisions. Feehan’s account was that traffic behind prevented him from slowing or stopping, there was no room to merge, and the lorry moved slightly into his van. The lorry driver denied contact and said he had continued straight. Another driver, who was some distance behind, did not see the vehicles collide.
The appeal challenged the trial judge’s explanation of dangerous and careless driving, his summary of a witness’s evidence, and his refusal to direct an acquittal because of concerns about delay and missing evidence. The Court of Appeal rejected all three grounds.
On the jury directions, the court considered the charge and the judge’s answer to the jury together. It concluded that the jury had been made aware of the level of fault needed to prove dangerous driving. On the witness summary, it held that the judge’s account was an understanding legitimately open on the evidence and that only a summary was required.
The court also rejected the argument that the missing dashcam material made the trial unfair. The lorry driver said he had viewed footage on the dashcam, but Garda Marie Gibbons testified that the chip she received could not be opened and that local camera experts could not retrieve it. The judgment said the chip should have been retained and made available, but made no finding on whether any Garda act or omission was blameworthy. It said the footage’s contents and whether they would have helped either side were matters of speculation. The defence had not sought the footage until after the earlier District Court trial.
The case had an unusual procedural history: Feehan was first tried summarily in the District Court, although the offence could be tried only on indictment. The Court of Appeal described that District Court trial as a nullity and noted that the conviction was later quashed. It said Feehan had submitted to that process without objecting to the District Court’s jurisdiction. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.