The Court of Appeal has dismissed O’Reilly Commercials Limited’s appeal against its conviction over a commercial vehicle test that failed to note a modified rear suspension on a bus later involved in a fatal crash.
The company was convicted by a jury in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court in 2013 on one count under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 1989. It was acquitted on three other counts. The Court of Appeal rejected all seven grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction, finding the trial satisfactory and the verdict safe.
The prosecution alleged that the company failed to note the bus’s modified rear suspension while testing it between 5 and 6 August 2005. The bus overturned near Erry, Clara, Co Offaly, on 4 April 2006 after its rear suspension failed and the back axle detached. Schoolboy Michael White suffered fatal injuries. The judgment says the failed suspension was an air ride system fitted by a previous owner instead of the manufacturer’s original leaf springs, and was not approved by the manufacturer.
The date of the test was disputed. The prosecution relied in part on a 2008 statement by the company’s managing director, David O’Reilly, which said the bus was tested on 6 August 2005, failed on several items and passed a retest on 1 September. O’Reilly later denied knowing what he had signed. The defence said the August visit was a pre-test inspection and the formal test and pass statement were both on 1 September. The appeal court said the conflicting evidence was for the jury to resolve.
The court also rejected challenges to rulings on documents and expert evidence. It found that the trial judge was entitled to prevent company records from being introduced through prosecution witnesses who could not give relevant evidence about them. It held that an expert’s opinion that the bus should not have passed a roadworthiness test did not decide whether the company was guilty; that remained for the jury.
The appeal court accepted there could be a possible inconsistency between conviction on the first count and acquittal on the second, which concerned failure to verify the modified suspension’s safety. But it said that did not require the conviction to be quashed: jurors may have treated the counts as alternatives, since verification would arise only if the modification had first been noticed. The court concluded that the company had not shown that no reasonable jury could have reached its verdict.