Toohey -v- DPP [2008] IESC 64 (03 December 2008)

Toohey -v- DPP [2008] IESC 64 (03 December 2008)

There was a real risk of an unfair trial on the defective tyre charge due to the failure to preserve the tyre for defence inspection, as in Ludlow. However, for the dangerous driving charges, the prosecution undertook not to rely on the Public Service Vehicle Inspector's evidence or photographs, and no expert reconstruction would be presented; thus, the applicant did not establish a real risk of an unfair trial on those charges.

Citation
[2008] IESC 64
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Liam Toohey; Appellants/respondents: The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Judges of the Circuit Court
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Prohibiting Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court order set aside for dangerous driving charges, affirmed for defective tyre charge.
Legal Topics
Preservation of Evidence, Right to Fair Trial, Dangerous Driving, Disclosure Obligations
Criminal Law Judicial Review Preservation of Evidence Right to Fair Trial Dangerous Driving Disclosure Obligations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liam Toohey

Applicant/respondent

The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Judges of the Circuit Court

Appellants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Order Prohibiting Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to preserve the MAN truck and tyre created a real risk of an unfair trial on charges of dangerous driving and use of a defective tyre
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution's evidence and undertakings removed the risk of unfairness for the dangerous driving charges

Ratio Decidendi

There was a real risk of an unfair trial on the defective tyre charge due to the failure to preserve the tyre for defence inspection, as in Ludlow. However, for the dangerous driving charges, the prosecution undertook not to rely on the Public Service Vehicle Inspector's evidence or photographs, and no expert reconstruction would be presented; thus, the applicant did not establish a real risk of an unfair trial on those charges.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court order set aside for dangerous driving charges, affirmed for defective tyre charge.

Orders

  • Prosecution on dangerous driving causing serious injury and dangerous driving charges may proceed.
  • Prosecution on defective tyre charge is prohibited.