Supreme Court of Ireland Decisions

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of the High Court (Flood J.) of 9th July, 1997, refusing Ian Dutton’s application to stop his trial in the Circuit Criminal Court on the basis that he in some way would not get a fair trial. He claims that he was deprived of an opportunity of examining a motor car, which featured in the charges that were proffered against him.

2. The facts of the matter are that the State say, and I am saying only it is the State’s case, that he was the driver of a stolen car which was chased by a number of garda patrol cars on the 23rd November, 1994, from Goatstown through Dundrum, Churchtown, Ranelagh, South Circular Road and Inchicore to Ballyfermot, Dublin. The State case is that the vehicle crashed at Ballyfermot. The car was the property of the Educational Building Society. It

3. The prosecution case is that Jan Dutton was the driver of this car. Ian Dutton tells us that he was not the driver. He may put forward an alibi. He was duly charged with offences of damaging property as well as unlawfully using a mechanically propelled vehicle. It is a mystery to me at the moment why he was not charged with a number of other offences. It appears that the lives and limbs of at least three members of the gardai were put in danger by whoever was driving this car. The State’s case is that it was Jan Dutton.

4. When the gardai had the car scientifically examined no evidence emerged as a result of that scientific examination that linked Mr. Dutton with the car. His fingerprints were not found on it. It was given back to the owners the next day. As it happened, two years or so passed before any application was made for an examination of this car. It would be quite intolerable if people were deprived of their property for any appreciable length of time and especially when nothing is going to emerge from any examination of it. In this case what can any examination prove? The State are not relying on anything that was found in the car to link Mr. Dutton with the offences. They will rely on the testimony of the gardai who came on the scene and arrested him at, or near, the scene of where the car crashed.

5. Ian Dutton was charged in the District Court and depositions were taken. When he was returned for trial, and just when his trial was about to start, an application was made in the High Court before Mr. Justice Geoghegan for judicial review and it was granted. It may not have been made clear to Mr. Justice Geoghegan that his trial was about to start. I want to say that I think any High Court judge should view with great hesitation, suspicion and circumspection any application to stop any trial in any criminal court henceforth at any stage. But especially where the trial is about to begin. There are far to many of these specious applications being brought. If there is a question of any possibility of evidence being admitted, or a man being prejudiced in any way at trial, the trial judge should be entrusted with the task of ruling on that in general. It should not be a matter for judicial review. It is quite astonishing that a case of this vintage, all these years ago, has still not been brought to trial and I regard this application for judicial review as bordering, if not crossing the border, of an abuse of the process of the Court. There is no justification good, bad or indifferent for stopping the trial. The word should go forth from this Court that this should never be allowed happen again.

6. I would dismiss the appeal.