Supreme Court FOUND GUILTY OF NEGLIGENT DRIVING

Press, Volume C, Issue 29505, 5 May 1961, Page 17

Supreme Court FOUND GUILTY OF NEGLIGENT DRIVING

A jury in the Supreme Court yesterday found Stewart Christie Forrester, aged 65, a retired car salesman. guilty of negligently driving his car in New Brighton road on the night of December 14. 1960. thereby causing bodily injury to Wenda Jane Greatrex. married, a nursing Sister. Mr Justice Macarthur remanded Forrester in custody for sentence on May 12. The jury took two hours and three-quarters to reach its verdict. Mr C. M. Roper conducted the case for the Crown, and Mr W. F. Brown appeared for Forrester. Reviewing the Crown evidence in his final address. Mr Brown told the jury that it contained many discrepancies. Mr Moultrie’s evidence. he suggested, was greatly exaggerated. He had said, and the jury had no opportunity to judge what tvpe of man he was as he was in England, that he had identified the accused as the driver of a blue Volkswagen that passed him at 45 miles an hour at night. "Mr Moultrie conceded that he only saw this driver for a portion of a second, but said he saw him well enough to identify him two and ahalf months later,” said Mr Brown. “The defence case is that it was not the accused’s blue Volkswagen that caused the accident but a second blue Volkswagen, and that this would be no coincidence in view of the number of such cars in the district. On a busy thoroughfare such as New Brighton road it would be no coincidence to have two blue Volkswagens driven by elderly men on the road at the same time." Mr Brown said. “The witnesses for the Crown are decent, honest people, but it is possible for decent, honest people to make mistakes, especially at night” Accused’s Denial Counsel submitted that the Crown's evidence had many gaps in it and must together with the defence and the accused’s denial that it was his car which caused the accident, leave the jury in doubt The accused's car did not have marks on it. and it would be reasonable to expect that if it had hit Mrs Greatrex’s bicycle it would have been marked. The accused was entitled to the benefit of the doubts. The jury had to look at the

evidence as a composite whole, Mr Roper submitted in his final address. If the jury believed the defence story it had to believe that there were two blue Volkswagens, each with a registered number beginning with 4 and ending with 8 at the accident at the same time and parked very close to each other. "But. in fact, not even the accused saw two Volkswagens at the scene although, on his own evidence, the second would have to have been parked near his own." Mr Roper said. "In fact, an inference could be drawn from the defence case that were three blue Volkswagens at the scene. The one seen to have knocked down Mrs Greatrex made a U turn and disappeared in the direction of the city, a second which made a U turn in front of the bus and parked behind it; and a third, the accused’s, which came straight along the road and parked near the bus. "According to the defence case, two of these blue Volkswagens were driven by elderly men who spoke so alike and looked so alike that five responsible people mistook the accused for the second man. These came five people, according to the defence case, later made the same mistake of picking the accused out at an identification parade. "The defence has said these five people are decent, honest people. If you are to believe the defence story, I submit you must think they are half-witted,” Mr Roper said. He said the jury must have a reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt to acquit him, not a doubt that would insult their intelligence. Summing-up Summing up, his Honour said there was no dispute that the driver of the car that hit Mrs Greatrex was plainly negligent and that this negligence caused her injury. The way in which both counsel had put the case, and he agreed with it, was simply whether that driver was the accused. That was the only question. The Crown’s case was that the cumulative evidence left no doubt that the accused was the driver. The defence was a denial, both in a statement to the police and from the witness box. by the accused that he was driver. The defence also had the support from a witness that there were no marks on the accused’s ear two days after the accident. His Honour said that the evidence concerning the

identification parade was of importance, as far as the Crown's case was concerned, in that several people picked out the accused as the man who had conversations with them at the scene of the accident The accused denied having conversations with these people. If the jury was left with any reasonable doubt, it must acquit the accusei