Supreme Court Motorist Acquitted On Fatal Negligence Charge

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29749, 16 February 1962, Page 14

Supreme Court Motorist Acquitted On Fatal Negligence Charge

After a retirement of less than 10 minutes a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Russell Nathan Evans, aged 40, a labourer, not guilty of a charge of negligent driving causing the death of a motor-cyclist, John Gordon Williams, on the evening of June 5 last year.

Mr Justice Richmond told the jury that he considered its verdict was the only one it could possibly have arrived at. He discharged the accused.

The charge arose out of an accident involving the accused’s car and the motorcyclist in Marshland road, near Prestons road, at 6.30 p.m. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. He was represented by Mr B. McClelland. Mr C. M. Roper appeared for the Crown. Crown’s Case Mr Roper said the Crown’s case was that the accused’s driving conduct fell far short of that of a reasonably careful driver. If the Crown evidence was accepted the accused was engaged in a highly dangerous manoeuvre in turning across Marshland road in the face of oncoming traffic. Outlining the Crown evidence Mr Roper said the accused was travelling north and the motor-cyclist south at the time of the accident. After the impact the accused’s car overturned and came to rest on its side. Williams and his motor-cycle were found in a ditch at the side of the road. His injuries were such that he must have died instantly, said Mr Roper. The accused told police he had been driving north at 35 miles an hour with his headlights dipped when all of a sudden there was a terrific explosion as though his car had blown up, Mr Roper said.

The accused said he had not at any stage turned across the road. Dr. C. T. B. Pearson, a pathologist, who conducted a post-mortem on Williams, said in cross-examination that Williams’s control of his motor-cycle would be affected by the amount of alcohol found in his blood. Re-examined by Mr Roper, he said that such an amount of alcohol would very considerably affect a person’s judgment and reaction time. He would not, however, be regarded as drunk. Defence Submissions No evidence was called by the defence. Mr McClelland said there had been no damage to the left side of the accused's car, which would have been struck by the motor-cycle if the Crown’s theory that the accused had turned across his path was true. The accident damage was consistent with the car being hit head-on by the motorcyclist. "It is therefore not possible that the car was broadside on to the motor-cyclist; it is clear that the latter is the more likely explanation of the accident,” Mr McClelland said. He submitted that Williams, under the influence of

liquor, drifted across to the middle of the road and in trying to get back to his correct side he put on his brakes, lost control, and continued on his wrong side of the road, running head-on into the accused’s car. His Honour, in his sum-ming-up, said Mr McClelland's explanation of the accident seemed a perfectly reasonable one on the evidence. and that the impact had occurred on the accused's side of the road.