Youth to stand trial on dangerous driving count

Press, 1 October 1983, Page 5

Youth to stand trial on dangerous driving count

A youth in the District Court yesterday was committed for trial by jury on a charge arising from his allegedly running his car into one of a group of young people who had left a party last November 27. The defendant, Ricky Hill, aged 19, unemployed, had elected trial by jury on a charge of injuring Joseph Richard Beams by driving a car in a manner dangerous to Mr Beams.

After a hearing of depositions of evidence of prosecution witnesses yesterday, Messrs R. C. Holland and J. W. Taylor, Justices of the Peace, held that there was sufficient evidence to commit the defendant for trial.

They remanded him on bail to October 14, pending his trial.

Defence counsel (Mr E. Bedo) submitted at the end of the prosecution case that the defendant should not be committed for trial as the evidence was equally consistent with the defendant having driven off in selfdefence, to escape an attack

on his car by members of the group. Outlining the police case, Sergeant W. P. Creasey said the charges arose from an incident in Arthur Street, Addington, about 1 a.m. last November 27 in which it was alleged that the defendant drove his car at Mr Beams, striking him, and then reversed his car while Mr Beams was underneath.

Mr Beams suffered quite serious injuries, requiring hospital treatment, Sergeant Creasey said. Evidence of a plastic surgeon at Burwood Hospital was that Mr Beams suffered multiple abrasions to the body, and required skin grafts to the eyelids and face. He still had some “residual problems” in both eyelids.

Evidence of a number of prosecution witnesses was admitted by consent of defence counsel. Statements of members of the group with Mr Beams were admitted without being read to the Court but most of these witnesses were crossexamined.

One of the group, a student, said in crossexamination that he had wielded the thinner of two sticks of wood (produced as exhibits). He had not used it near the defendant’s car.

He was carrying the stick because the defendant drove alongside and he “just picked up something to defend myself.” Others in his group picked up stones.

He and others in the group had not drunk to excess at the party they had been at that night. One of their group, Joseph Beams, had chased a young girl on a bicycle. He was “merry,” but not drunk. A youth, aged 16, said he was not threatened by the defendant or his passenger. He had had a fair bit to drink at the party and was a little drunk.

; The group all decided that they would pick up stones.

He saw Joseph Beams run across the road in front

of the car. The car was stopped at the time, and as Mr Beams neared the car it took off, striking him. Mandy Carol Beams, aged 19, said in cross-examina-tion that one of the group held a stick. He was about five feet from the car.

She was the only one of her group who saw a knife in the car. Sha could not describe the knife; she saw only 8 to 10cm of the blade. She denied lying about seeing a knife. The group decided to pick up stones in case those in the car decided to get out and throw something. Another member of the group said he was 10ft from the car, on the passenger’s side. He was closer to the car than Mandy Beanos. He did not see a knife in the car. He could not remember which person in the group had the thinner stick. The person with this stick was about two feet from the car just before the accident. A security officer, Christopher Robin Johnson, said that while carrying out security checks at 1 a.m. he passed a group of five or six persons near Blenheim Road. He saw them again after a security check, and one of the group ran along the road chasing a girl on a bicycle. He was about to 'speak to the person but saw that the girl was moving away, so drove off. In his rear vision mirror he saw headlights of a car. This vehicle turned towards the group and then backed off and did this two or three times before driving off. The defendant, in a written statement made to Detective L. B. Halsall in August, allegedly said he and a friend were driving in his car and had stopped to urinate in Arthur Street. They were reversing out of this street when a group of More court news Pages 6, 7

about four young persons walked across the street.

They crossed in front of his car. He continued backing and then saw a fellow approach the car, holding what appeared to be a bar or stick.

He thought the person was going to smash his windscreen so he accelerated forward into Arthur Street. He drove straight ahead and was concerned that the windscreen was going to be broken.

He did not see where the person went to after he began moving forward. He did not realise he had hit him until the car slowed. He then realised that he had hit the person, and drove forward. He looked behind and saw the person lying on the ground. He heard a girl scream. He then drove off. He said he knew there

were people there and he was too nervous to go back. He drove home. Later, he swapped his car for another.

The statement said the defendant did not know the person he ran over, and it was not done intentionally. Mr Bedo submitted that there was no case to answer. He said the evidence had been equally consistent with one of the group having approached the defendant’s car wielding a stick in a threatening manner, and the defendant driving off to avoid him and colliding with the complainant.

That would certainly not constitute driving in a danggerous manner, it was a reflex action in self-defence to avoid what clearly was about to become an attack on the defendant or his windscreen or car, Mr Bedo submitted.