Supreme Court YOUTH FOUND NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENT DRIVING

Press, Volume C, Issue 29510, 11 May 1961, Page 10

Supreme Court YOUTH FOUND NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENT DRIVING

A jury in the Supreme t Court yesterday found Darryl i Kevin Trenberth, aged 18, an c apprentice mechanic, not , guilty of negligently driving e a car in Gloucester street , on December 3, thereby c causing the death of Joseph d William Gray, a married r man. Mr Justice Richmond dis- f charged Trenberth. s The jury took 75 minutes j, to reach its verdict. Mr C. M. Roper conducted , the case for the Crown. Mr j J. N. Matson appeared for c Trenberth. t Mr Roper said that the , accident happened at 11.30 . p.m. on December 3, a Sat- , urday. There was drizzling ; rain, but visibility was fairly : good. The intersection was , comparatively well lit. Glou- , cester street in the area ran " north, going over the DalMngton bridge on the north aide of Avonside -dqve. Two ' men, who would giV®. evidence. were standing in Gloucester street south of ’ Avonside drive at the time. ' Right-hand Turns > The evidence would be that the accused's, car was travel- j ling south in Gloucester ; street It passed over the < Dallington bridge and turned right to travel east along Avonside drive. After travelling about 30 yards along * Avonside drive, the car ' turned round, and travelled back west along Avonside ° drive. The car then turned right into Gloucester street ® to travel south in that street 1 again. 6 “The evidence will be that c while the accused’s car was t doing this last right-band c turn it hit Mr Gray, who c was cycling west along Avon- f side drive. The left-hand r front of the accused’s car hit t Mr Gray. The car, after the accident, stopped on the wrong side in Gloucester (. street opposite a butcher’s s shop. “Mr Gray, the evidence will be. lived with his family in Bracken street, a street going off a short extension of . Avonside drive. He suffered severe head injuries, and ’ died in hospital about 12 s hours later without regaining consciousness,” Mr Roper s said. The accused made a state- c rnent to the police, counsel f continued, in which he said t he did not see the cyclist until he glimpsed a man’s face right in front of the left hand a de of his car. He did not see the cyclist because the windows of his car were fogged up; he had no windscreen wiper on the left-hand side of his car. He thought the cyclist did not have a light. After the accident, said Mr Hoper, Mr Gray’s cycle was found to have a dynamo set in working order with the dynamo <n the on position. The Crown's evidence would be that the accused was on the wrong side of the road and that the accident happened at a comparatively well lit intersection when the cyclist had the right of way. Crown's Case The Crown's case was that the accused had failed to keep a proper look-out, failed to give way, and that it could be inferred from the position of impact and the fact that 1 the left-hand front of the accused’s car hit the cyclist that the accused was cutting the comer from Avonside drive into Gloucester street. The Crown also said that

the accused drove his car with fogged-up* windows, a condition he should have rectified. The Crown conceded that the drizzling rain would make driving more difficult .but said there was a duty on the accused to take

reasonable precautions to see properly and that clearing his windows was one reasonable precaution he should have taken, Mr Roper said. William Lexington Jones, a law clerk, and his sister. Marilyn Lexington Jones, a clerk, gave evidence that they saw the accident when standing under a butcher’s shop veranda in Gloucester street. Both said that neither the car nor the cyclist appeared to deviate before the collision. The intersection seemed l to be sufficiently well lit. They had not observed whether the cyclist’s light was going at the time of the collision. Marilyn Lexington Jones said the car seemed to be going rather fast. To Mr Matson, she said that she did not have a driving licence. To his Honour, the witness said the cyclist was wearing a medium to dark brown overcoat. Testing Light Constable G. F. Davidson read the statement made by the accused to him. The accused, in it. said he did not see any cycle light. Cross-examined by Mr Matson, the witness said he tested Gray’s cycle at the scene of the accident. The dynamo was on, and he spun the back wheel. The accused, standing in front of the cycle, said the light did not go. When he got back to the police station he tested the bicycle again, and the light went perfectly. Mr Matson: Has the bicycle been in police custody ever since the accident?

The witness: Yes. Would you test the light now? —Yes. The witness tested the bicycle in front of the jury. The light did not go when he spun the rear wheel.

To Mr Matson, the witness agreed that one of the passengers in the accused’s car could have been standing in front of the cycle when he tested it at the accident.

Re-examined by Mr Roper, the witness said he did nothing to the bicycle between testing its light at the accident acene and the police station. Defence Case

The Crown alleged that the accused had failed to keep a proper look-out and might have cut the corner, but the defence would show that another interpretation could be put on the events, said Mr Matson, opening the defence. It was a bad night for driving, counsel said, and the defence was that the accused had taken as much care as was reasonable. It was an unfortunate accident, but there was nothing for which the accused could really be blamed.

Evidence would be given by the accused and two witnesses. One of these, Joan Silk, a telephonist, was sitting in front of the car alongside the accused. The other, Miles Anthcny Beadle, a warehouseman, was sitting in the back of the car. Beadle had met the accused for the first time that night, and was an independent witness. The accused gave evidence along the lines of his statement. He said he was in second gear and travelling about eight miles an hour when turning into Gloucester street. When the constable tested the light it did not go. Cross-examined by Mr Roper, the accused said his vision out of the left side of the car was obscured. He could not see out the left window because it was fogged up. The left of the windscreen, where there was no wiper, was obscured by rain on the outside. The accused said he did not cut the corner sharply. Joan Silk said the car was not going fast. She heard a smash of glass. Beadle said that when the constable tested the light on the bicycle at the accident it was not working. He was standing at the side of the bicycle, Beadle said, but he could see the headlamp of the bicycle. Cross-examined by Mr Roper, Beadle agreed that two days after the accident he told the police he estimated the car was going from 15 to 20 miles an hour when it turned from Avonside drive back into Gloucester street.