Dangerous driving charge

Press, 1 June 1985, Page 4

Dangerous driving charge

A man charged in the District Court yesterday with dangerous driving causing injury, by being a party to a racing incident in which the other motorist was killed in a crash, told a traffic officer that they had reached speeds of 80 miles an hour and had been playing the fool and racing each other. ‘ This evidence was given when Russell John Maher, aged 24, a railways traffic operator, denied four charges arising from the incident on October 28, 1984. Defence counsel (Mr G. J. Venning) submitted when seeking dismissal of the charges that the defendant had withdrawn his encouragement to the racing before his friend, David lan Aitken, aged 26, had been involved in a head-on collision with another car on the southern motorway. Evidence was given that two occupants of the oncoming car were badly injured in the collision. After the completion of evidence and counsel’s submissions, Judge Paterson reserved decision. . ■; . § Detective Sergeant B. M. RpswelL prosecuted. The i‘: defendant faced charges of causing injury to Gary Robert -Gordy and Geraldine Margaret Cordy by a cat in a mannerwhich , havjiig regard; to the circumstances was dan- ? . Detective Sergeant Roswell said these charges were brought alleging that the defendant had been a party to the driving which caused the injuries to Mr and Mrs Cordy? t The defendant also faced charges of driving on the southern motorway when he had an excessive ratio of alcohol in his breath (550 micrograms) and of driving

on State highway 1 at Sockbum at a speed which was or might have dangerous to the public. Mr Cordy, a foreman, gave evidence of driving his car on the southern motorway at 1.45 a.m. on October 28. His wife was in the front seat. Both were wearing seat belts. He said he next recalled waking up in hospital. He suffered fractures of both lower legs and was unable to work for 6% months. Mrs Cordy, a hospital kitchen hand, also said she had no memory of the accident. She suffered a broken hip, broken left leg, facial injuries, and paralysis of an arm. She was still off work because of her injuries. Graham Trevor Eves, a welder, gave evidence of two cars travelling at speed ahead of him about 1.30 a.m. on October 28. Both cars stopped at the intersection of Blenheim Road and Curletts Road even though they had the traffic lights in their favour, ana both drivers spoke to each other. The cars then turned into the southern motorway and “had the guts thrashed out of them” as they drove over the overhead bridge. They were under full throttle as they climbed the bridge, Mr Eves said. The cars were travelling at 60 to 70 miles an hour in the vicinity of Parkhouse Road; He Jost sight<of them round ;■ a bend ahead, but after reaching this bend he saw the “remains” of two cars , stopped in the middle of the road.

Witness parked in the road with his car’s headlights shining to warn other traffic, and then went to the two vehicles to see if he could assist the occupants. Cross-examined, Mr Eves said he lost sight of the two

cars for a maximum of 15 to 20 seconds, before the accident. He agreed he could not comment on what happened in that time. The defendant said that he and the driver of a had been drinking at the Hornby Rugby League Club’s rooms. While on the southern motorway heading towards the city they reached 80 miles an hour and were playing the fool and racing with each other. The last he recalled before the collision was flashing of lights, and he drove his car on to the grass verge. Traffic Officer M. J. Crawley on cross-examina-tion, said it was possible the defendant’s comment that they were racing could have referred to the speed they were travelling at. A former constable, Mr T. C. Bakker, now a contractor, said he took a breath test from the defendant which showed a reading of 550 micrograms. The defendant said he had drunk six 12oz glasses of beer and a bottle of beer at the clubrooms between 6 p.m. and 1 a.m. He did not know what Mr Aitken had consumed. Mr Bakker said the breath test report showed a reading of 500 micrograms. In cross-examination, he attributed this to an error when transposing the reading from his; notebook, which was 550. Senior Constable M; W. Smith said that a postmortem examination blood specimen taken from Mr Aitken showed an alcohol ratio of 194 milligrams.

In a written statement which the defendant made to Constable Smith he said he and Mr Aitken left the clubrooms at the same time. Mr Aitken appeared to be “a bit pissed but not too bad.”

Mr Aitken drove off and was travelling at 60 to 70 miles an hour when defendant passed him. Defendant had no particular reason to pass, but was in a hurry to get home. Mr Aitken’s car went further ahead on the southern motorway after reaching 80 m.p.h. and defendant then heard “an almighty crash” as Mr Aitken’s car and another collided. The defendant’s statement said it all happened in front of him. He was still travelling at 80 miles an hour as he went past. He then pulled over on to the grass verge. Mr Venning called no defence evidence but submitted that there was insufficient evidence to convict the defendant on any of the charges. He submitted in relation to the charges alleging the defendant was a party to dangerous driving by Mr Aitken causing injury to Mr and Mrs Cordy that, there had been no evidence of any expressed agreement between the drivers to race each other. Mr Venning said he accepted that the defendant’s actions might possibly have encouraged -Mr Aitken but submitted that the defendant had “withdrawn bis encouragement” before the collision occurred. Referring to the charge of dangerous speeding, Mr Venning said the defendant admitted having travelled at an excessive speed. However, excessive speed alone did not constitute the offence. Other related circumstances had to be considered, and there was evi-' dence that the road conditions were favourable and that the area concerned was an industrial and not a residential area,, and with little other traffic and no pedestrians. Mr Venning said the ex-cessive-alcohol charge also should fail, as it would be dangerous to convict in view of the evidence of the constable’s mistake in transcribing the reading from his notebook.