Constable for trial over road deaths

Press, 13 November 1985, Page 4

Constable for trial over road deaths

A police constable who had been travelling to under-cover duties when his car struck and killed two elderly pedestrians in Ferry Road after darkness on May 25 will face trial by jury in the District Court on four traffic charges arising from the fatalities.

After a two-day preliminary hearing in the District Court, Judge Sheehan committed Nigel Marc Bartlett, aged 22, for trial on four charges. He accepted defence submissions by Mr K. N. Hampton in relation to two other charges, and discharged Bartlett on these. The defendant was alleged to have caused the deaths of the couple, James Alfred Lanyon, aged 72, and Reta Jessica Lanyon, aged 70, as they were crossing Ferry Road to their car after attending an evening service at St Anne’s Catholic Church on May 25. Bartlett was committed for trial on the charges, in relation to each deceased, of causing their deaths by driving at a speed which, having regard to all the circumstances, was dangerous; and causing the tcouple’s death by carelessly driving a car while under the influence of alcohol, but not so as to commit an offence against the excess alcohol provisions of the Transport Act. Bartlett was discharged on charges of causing the couple’s death by an act or omission when driving a car while the proportion of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams. Bartlett was remanded at large pending the fixing of a date for trial.

Mr D. J. L. Saunders prosecuted. Eighteen prosecution witnesses gave evidence.

In further evidence yesterday, Sharon Dawn Flowers, a shop assistant, said she lived near the church at the time and first became aware of the accident when, from her bedroom, she heard a “loud thump” and then a squeal of brakes.

She ran outside and saw the man and woman lying on the road. She was concerned for the driver of the car because there was a man getting fairly upset and making accusations. She took the driver into her house. He was obviously very shaken. He remained in the house until a traffic officer called.

Miss Flowers, said she thought she asked the driver, Bartlett, if he had been drinking. “He said ‘no’ and I be-

lieved him; He struck me as being really on the straight and narrow.” She thought she asked him something about his not seeing the couple, because it was “terrible down that way.” She thought he muttered something about not seeing them. Miss Flowers said that on several occasions since shifting to Ferry Road last February she had been nearly run over when crossing the road. Traffic did not seem to slow down or give way, and lighting was particularly bad in the area. The street was full of shadows and when church services were held cars lined both sides of the street “up and down.” ’’You can’t see a thing,” the witness said. Miss Flowers said the area was very badly lit and very shadowy. If she walked across the road wearing black clothes she could not have been seen.

Cross-examined, Miss Flowers said street lighting in the area was really bad and a petition of residents had been started to try to get the lighting improved “but we did not get very far.”

On the evening of the accident she noticed a very bad ground fog along Ferry Road towards Sumner.

She stood near the driver in her kitchen and did not smell alcohol on him. Traffic Officer M. A. Kenworthy said he was called to the accident scene and went to a house to speak to Bartlett. Bartlett was affected by drink and his breath smelt strongly of liquor. He admitted having drunk three or four Steinlagers. A subsequent breath test showed a reading of 550 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath.

A blood sample taken by a doctor, in the traffic officer’s presence, was analysed and showed a ratio of 133 milligrams of alcohol Eer 100 millilitres of food.

The officer said there was street lighting in the area of the accident scene but it was not particularly bright. The weather was fine.

Sergeant T. R. Marshall said he questioned Bartlett at the scene and at the Central Police Station. Bartlett confirmed that he was a policeman. He said the couple “just walked across in front Of me.” He was travelling at 65 km/h. He was not on a police operation at the time but was on his way to one. He had been drinking, “but only a couple of beers.”

In cross-examination, Ser-

geant Marshall told of a certain amount of confusion about who the defendant was, and of the view that he might be an undercover constable. Bartlett said he was on an operation at the time. The witness said he did not know initially that Bartlett had described himself as a public servant and did not want himself described as a policeman. Asked how it was that the news media had established that week-end that Bartlett was an undercover constable, Sergeant Marshall said he had radio-telephoned police headquarters. He believed that channel might have been monitored at the time by the news media. A news release was then made by the past district commissioner of police regarding the driver in the accident.

Mr Hampton called no evidence but submitted that there was no case to answer on all six charges. He referred to evidence in the case on the allegations of dangerous speed; an act or omission linked with alcohol; and carelessness. He submitted that on the evidence none of these allegations had been made out to the appropriate standard required to commit Bartlett for trial.

Mr Hampton said there was evidence of inadequate lighting and Miss Flowers’ evidence had been vivid on the problems in this regard. The couple had crossed the road some distance from a pedestrian crossing, and there was evidence of lines of parked cars along the road outside the church. They had attempted to cross in an area where a motorist might not expect pedestrians to cross, given that there was a pedestrian crossing a little further along. Mr Hampton submitted that the evidence did not disclose that, other than his speed, Bartlett was doing anything untoward or wrong. There was no “dangerous,” act or omission. The only reliable estimate of speed was Bartlett’s own estimate of 65 km/h which in itself was not a speed that, given the circumstances, would prove dangerous. : Mr Hampton said there was nothing' th indicate Bartlett was under the influence of drink. 1 “This was an accident that any motorist could have,” he said.

It had not been shown that there was any linking of the accident with proved excess blood-alcohol.