Judge dismisses case after Gardaí did not disclose CCTV

The failure of Gardaí to disclose CCTV evidence to a defence solicitor has prompted a judge to dismiss legal proceedings against a man who was charged with being drunk in charge of a vehicle.

David Mooney, Lisnaboley, Claremorris pleaded not guilty to the offence when he appeared before Castlebar District Court last week.

The court heard that Mr Mooney was arrested at Certa Filling Station on Killcoman Road, Claremorris, at 1.15pm on March 15, 2025.

Gda Sgt 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 nosebleed and had blood around his lips,” Gda Sgt Egan noted. “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 claimed 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 1.30pm and the defendant went into it for treatment for his injuries. Mr Mooney emerged from the ambulance some 40 minutes and said he did not need to go to the hospital.

Sgt Egan said he arrested the defendant at 2.14pm for being drunk in charge of a vehicle. He brought him to the local garda station where he underwent a breath test which was carried out by Gda Barry Walsh. The test revealed a concentration of 57mg of alcohol per 100ml of breath. The legal limit is 22mg.

Defending solicitor Gary Mulchrone put it to Sgt 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.

However, Sgt Egan said the keys 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 the alleged assault. He also said he was told by the defendant that he had his head stamped on by one of his assailants.

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

Asked by Mr Mulchrone if there was any CCTV footage available at the scene, Sgt Egan said there was footage, but he did not consider it part of the evidence as he wasn’t investigating the alleged assault due to the defendant’s refusal to make an official complaint about it.

Mr Mulchrone asked Sgt 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.

“It is only now through cross-examination that for the first time I have heard of any CCTV,” said Mr Mulchrone, who sought to have the case dismissed on the grounds that the CCTV could have been of great assistance in framing a timeline in the case. The solicitor noted there was case law to support his argument.

In dismissing the charge, Judge Patricia Cronin referenced the case law where the higher courts had ruled that in such cases, where CCTV is available, it should be disclosed. She did, however, accept fully that there was no intent on behalf of Sgt Egan to withhold the CCTV and accepted he was under the impression that it would only be relevant if he was investigating the assault.

• Published in conjunction with the Courts Reporting Scheme.