Ludlow v. D.P.P. & Anor [2005] IEHC 299 (16 July 2005)

Ludlow v. D.P.P. & Anor [2005] IEHC 299 (16 July 2005)

The Gardaí were under a duty to preserve the tyres as they were central to the prosecution and defence; their failure to do so, without evidence that preservation was impracticable, created a real risk of an unfair trial for the applicant. The applicant was not disentitled to relief by delay, as he could not reasonably have anticipated the need to inspect the tyres before being charged or served with the Book of Evidence.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 299
Parties
Applicant: Dennis Ludlow; First Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Second Respondent: His Honour Judge Michael O'Shea
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
16 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibition of Criminal Trial
Outcome
Application granted; prohibition of trial ordered.
Legal Topics
Preservation of Evidence, Right to Fair Trial, Dangerous Driving Causing Death, Prohibition of Criminal Trial, Delay in Seeking Relief
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Preservation of Evidence Right to Fair Trial Dangerous Driving Causing Death Prohibition of Criminal Trial Delay in Seeking Relief

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennis Ludlow

Applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

First Respondent

His Honour Judge Michael O'Shea

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment on Application for Prohibition of Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure by Gardaí to preserve tyres constituted a breach of duty to preserve relevant evidence
  2. 2 Whether such failure created a real risk of an unfair trial
  3. 3 Whether any delay by the applicant disentitled him to relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Gardaí were under a duty to preserve the tyres as they were central to the prosecution and defence; their failure to do so, without evidence that preservation was impracticable, created a real risk of an unfair trial for the applicant. The applicant was not disentitled to relief by delay, as he could not reasonably have anticipated the need to inspect the tyres before being charged or served with the Book of Evidence.

Court Disposition

Application granted; prohibition of trial ordered.

Orders

  • The trial of the applicant in respect of the charges is prohibited due to the real risk of an unfair trial arising from the failure to preserve the tyres.