Garda sent for trial after delivery man suffered severed leg at M50

Tom Tuite

A garda who denies careless driving causing serious injury to a Brazilian delivery man whose leg was severed at the M50 in 2023 has been sent forward for trial.

Following a probe by Fiosrú, the police ombudsman (formerly Gsoc), criminal proceedings commenced against Garda Neil Doyle of Dundrum station.

He was first summonsed to appear at Dublin District Court on May 8th on a charge stating that he, on October 28th, 2023, at Junction 11 north on the M50 motorway, a public place in the Dublin Metropolitan District, drove a 2018-registered vehicle, without due care and attention, thereby causing serious bodily harm to another person, namely Joao Ferreira.

The prosecution had provided defence solicitor Liz Hughes with disclosure of the evidence.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) directed summary disclosure in the District Court, only on a guilty plea.

Otherwise, it would have to go to the Circuit Court, which, on conviction, has wider sentencing powers.

At a resumed hearing on September 25th, Ms Hughes told Judge Michele Finan that, having received significant disclosure of evidence, she could inform the court that her client was entering a not-guilty plea.

Judge Finan noted the defence position and adjourned the case until Monday, when the prosecutors served a book of evidence on the officer.

She noted that the DPP consented to him being sent forward for trial indictment on the sole count in the book of evidence.

Granting a return-for-trial order, she gave the standard warning that he must notify the prosecution within 14 days if he intends to rely on an alibi in his trial. She also granted an order for the defence to be furnished with interview videos.

The defendant was remanded on bail to appear at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, where the case will be listed for mention on March 13th.

He spoke briefly, saying "Yes" to confirm his signature on the bail bond. Legal aid was granted after a statement of his means was furnished, and the judge noted there was no State objection.

The charge is contrary to section 52(1) & 52(2)(a) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961 (as substituted by section 4 of the Road Traffic (No. 2) Act 2011.