C.D. -v- Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] IESC 70 (23 October 2009)

C.D. -v- Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] IESC 70 (23 October 2009)

The Supreme Court held that the absence of certain CCTV footage and still photographs did not create a real risk of an unfair trial. The duty to preserve evidence does not extend to unprecedented or farfetched standards such as requiring stills at every half-second interval. The available evidence, including moving footage from one camera and stills from another, was sufficient, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the missing evidence would have impacted the fairness of the trial or the determination of guilt or innocence. No error of law was identified in the High Court's approach.

Citation
[2009] IESC 70
Parties
Appellant/applicant: C. D.; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
23 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Missing Evidence, Duty to Preserve Evidence, Fair Trial, Prohibition of Criminal Trial, CCTV Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Judicial Review Missing Evidence Duty to Preserve Evidence Fair Trial Prohibition of Criminal Trial CCTV Evidence

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. D.

Appellant/applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From High Court to Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to preserve certain CCTV footage and still photographs created a real risk of an unfair trial for the accused
  2. 2 Whether the Gardaí breached their duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence
  3. 3 Whether the absence of specific evidence justified prohibition of the criminal trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the absence of certain CCTV footage and still photographs did not create a real risk of an unfair trial. The duty to preserve evidence does not extend to unprecedented or farfetched standards such as requiring stills at every half-second interval. The available evidence, including moving footage from one camera and stills from another, was sufficient, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the missing evidence would have impacted the fairness of the trial or the determination of guilt or innocence. No error of law was identified in the High Court's approach.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed; no prohibition of the criminal trial