Guilty verdicts in road fatality case

Press, 19 August 1982, Page 4

Guilty verdicts in road fatality case

After a three-day trial a jury in the District Court early last evening found a young man guilty of two offences arising from an accident in which a girl, aged 16, on the tray of the utility vehicle he was driving to Christchurch from a party at Corsair Bay suffered fatal injuries, late in the evening of November 7 last year. The defendant, ’ Terry David Bingham, aged 20, an apprentice joiner, had denied the charges of causing the death of Andrea Michelle Nottingham,, aged 16, by carelessly using a utility vehicle while under the influence of liquor but not so affected as to be guilty of an offence against the excessalcohol provisions of the Transport Act, and of failing to ascertain if anybody was injured after the accident. The jury found him guilty of both charges, after a retirement of more than four hours.

Judge Pain remanded him on bail to September 1 for sentence;

Evidence in the case had been that the defendant had

been asked to drive a utility vehicle, with passengers including Miss Nothingham. to Christchurch for the party, while the owner of the vehicle drove another.

Soon after leaving the Heathcote end of the road tunnel the vehicle driven by the defendant went off the road and struck a light standard. Miss Nothingham was flung against the cab and suffered fatal internal injuries. The defendant left the scene soon after the accident, and before police arrived. The defence case had been that a steering fault unknown to the defendant had caused the accident, and that he had walked from the scene in a dazed condition, and not knowing what he was doing.

Evidence had been that he was found by a police patrol in a city street shortly before 5 a.m'. the next morning — about six hours after the accident.

Mr D. J. L. Saunders and Mr P. A. Boyce appeared for the' Crown, and Mr D. I. Jones for the defendant. Mr Jones, in his final address, said the Crown had not excluded the possibility that a defect in the vehicle’s suspension had caused the car to veer to the left and strike the light standard. Evidence of only one tyre skid mark being found on the roadway at the scene supported the view that there had been a defect in the vehicle’s suspension.

He said that the evidence of a tunnel authority officer had been that the car suddenly slewed from its course after leaving the tunnel, and went into a gutter and the light pole “for no apparent reason.”

A Ministry of Transport automative surveyor had conceded that, because of the extensive damage to the vehicle which limited the testing of it, he could not exclude the possibility that a defect in the suspension, not apparent to him, could have contributed to the accident. Mr Jones said that the defendant had driven 4.2 km from Corsair Bay. over a winding and twisting portion of road, without incident, before the vehicle went out of control on the smoothest stretch of road near the tunnel.

Two witnesses had given evidence of a defect in the steering which caused the vehicle to veer to the left. '

Mr Jones said that “at best” the Crown had proved that the defendant’s alcohol ratio could have been 30 to 40 milligrams, per 100 millilitres of blood, at the time of the accident.

Mr Jones suggested that the accident resulted from a vehicle defect, and not from careless driving by the defendant. He said in relation to the charge of failing to ascertain if any person had been injured after the accident that medical evidence was that the defendant suffered concussion and slight amnesia. He submitted that the defendant’s actions in leaving the scene were not deliberate, but were those of a man who was dazed and did not know exactly what he was doing.

Mr Saunders said that the Crown alleged that the defendant drove at an excessive speed and was not concentrating on his driving. His standard of driving fell

below the acceptable level of care in the circumstances.

The defendant knew he had consumed alcohol and, after the accident he panicked and left the area, Mr Saunders said.

In his summing up the Judge said the real issues in the case were whether it had been proved that the defendant drove, the utility vehicle carelessly, and if he had driven while under the influence of liquor. In his summing up the Judge said when traversing the evidence that a mechanical defect in the vehicle, as claimed by the defence, could be a complete defence to the careless use charge if the driver did not know of it.

There had been a sharp conflict in the expert evidence for the Crown and defence, in relation to the defendant’s likely level of alcohol at the time of the accident.

The question for the jury to decide was whether it had been proved that the defendant was under the influence of drink, not if he had exceeded the legal limit or if alcohol caused the accident.

Referring to the defence case in relation to the defendant’s leaving the scene, the Judge said that if he wandered off concussed and dazed, without knowing what he was doing, that would be a complete defence to the second charge.

If the evidence of the constable who interviewed the defendant was accepted, the statement made by the defendant contradicted the suggestion that he did not know what he was doing, the Judge said. .