CCTV ‘disclosure’ a factor in Mayo man's drunk-in-charge case being dismissed

A CLAREMORRIS man who appeared at Castlebar District Court on a drunk-in-charge offence had the case dismissed following a ruling by the judge that disclosure of CCTV footage had not been made to the defence solicitor in the case.

David Mooney, Lisnaboley, Claremorris, was arrested at Certa Filling Station on Killcoman Road, Claremorris, on March 15 of last year at 1.15 p.m.

Sergeant Denis Egan, who responded to the call, told the court he found the defendant sitting in the driver’s seat of the car with the keys in the ignition.

“The driver had a nose bleed and had blood around his lips,” Sergeant Egan told the court.

“He mentioned something about being assaulted in a house and also said he had drank a good bit since he got up that morning but did not know how much.”

He said the defendant also mentioned something about ‘getting a belt of glass’ and also said a man he didn't know had taken his car and drove it to the filling station.

“He seemed to be changing his story,” said the sergeant.

Witness said an ambulance arrived at 1.30 p.m. and the defendant went into it for treatment for his injuries.

He said 40 minutes later the defendant emerged from the ambulance and said he did not need to go to the hospital.

At 2.14 in the afternoon Sergeant Egan arrested the defendant for an offence of being drunk-in-charge of a vehicle.

He brought him to Claremorris Garda Station where he underwent a breath test which was carried out by Garda Barry Walsh.

The test revealed a concentration of 57 microgrammes of alcohol per 100mls of breath.

Mr. Gary Mulchrone, solicitor for the defendant, put it to Sergeant Egan that his client was sitting in the car waiting for an ambulance and had no intention of driving as he had the car keys in his pocket.

Sergeant Egan said the keys of the car were in the ignition when he arrived at the scene.

The sergeant added that he advised the defendant to make a statement in relation to an alleged assault against him.

He also said he was told by the defendant that he had his head stamped on by one of his assailants before he met him at filling station.

“I asked him a number of times if he wanted to make a statement over the alleged assault but he refused,” said Sergeant Egan.

Mr. Mulchrone asked if there was any CCTV footage available at the scene of the arrest, to which Sergeant Egan said there was but he did not consider it part of the evidence as he wasn’t investigating the alleged assault as the defendant did not make any complaint about any assault despite being asked a few times.

Mr. Mulchrone asked Sergeant Egan did it not occur to him that CCTV footage of the scene would be an important piece of evidence in relation to the charge before the court against his client.

“It is only now through cross-examination that for the first time I have heard of any CCTV,” said Mr. Mulchrone.

He added: “Surely that should have been produced to the court as part of the evidence,” argued Mr. Mulchrone.

Sergeant Egan again insisted that because he was not investigating a possible case of an alleged assault, he did not deem the CCTV to be relevant in the case before the court.

In applying for a dismissal of the charge, Mr. Mulchrone said his client had gone into the ambulance for 40 minutes and was out of sight of Sergeant Egan, while he also felt his client should have been charged with the offence that was before the court before he had gone into the ambulance and out of the sight of Sergeant Egan.

Mr. Mulchrone said it was clear that the CCTV could have been of great assistance in framing a timeline in the case and there was case law to support that argument.

It was his view that a gap in the timeline had been established and his client should have the case dismissed.

He also argued that it was his client who called the ambulance and in doing so it was unlikely that he had intended to drive which was a vital piece of proof in proving an offence in a drunk-in-charge case.

Judge Patricia Cronin said she was not holding with Mr. Mulchrone on the points in relation to whether there had been a gap in the timeline but accepted she had no option but to dismiss the charge as she referenced case law where the higher courts had ruled that in such cases, where CCTV was available, it should have been disclosed.

She did, however, accept fully that there was no intent on behalf Sergeant Egan of withholding the CCTV and accepted he was under the impression that it would only be relevant if it was an assault case he was dealing with.

She dismissed the charge.

* Funded by the Courts Reporting Scheme.