Park Hill man fined $20,000 for dangerous driving
From the Courts
November 16, 2012

Park Hill man fined $20,000 for dangerous driving

Park Hill resident Garry Harry has until April 2014 to come up with $20,000, if he is to avoid going to prison for a year.{{more}}

The 29-year-old was on Wednesday, November 14 convicted for causing the death of Kenroy Hull by dangerous driving on November 8, 2009 at Georgetown.

In addition to the fine that High Court judge Wesley James imposed on him, Harry, who had his driver’s license suspended since January 2010, had the suspension extended for another six months.

During his address to the nine member mixed jury, Harry’s attorney, Ronald Marks, said the prosecution had a weak case and that his client was not speeding, nor did he come off the main road when the incident took place.

The court heard that Harry was driving an omnibus from the direction of Georgetown when he struck the deceased, 42, of Georgetown.

Hull was struck not too far from the playing field and was thrown over a wall before slamming into a utility pole.

Marks said surgical pathologist, Dr Ronald Child, testified that at the time of Hull’s death, alcohol was found in his body.

“If a drunken man stumbles in front of your vehicle, what are you supposed to do? asked Marks.

Marks further stated that, according to the testimony of Inspector Grenviille Dick, the vehicle was inspected on the fateful night and the conclusion was that the vehicle was travelling at a moderate pace.

“In order to convict him, you have to be able to find something that he did that falls below the standard of a reasonable driver… The van never left the road. The lash he (deceased) got threw him 13 feet away….,” Marks said.

The medical evidence revealed that Hull suffered injuries to his head.

“My client said he didn’t see anything. He heard a noise and came out,” Marks added.

The attorney further pointed out that there were no brake marks on the road from his client’s vehicle.

“There were no brakes impression on the road. This is obvious! If somebody came suddenly onto the road from below a road, there is no way he could have seen him. He saw nothing for him to create that stimulus to mash brakes,” Marks said.

“The only way you can find this man guilty is by speculating. The damage was at the left side of the vehicle. I’m pointing out the ridiculousness of the prosecution’s case that he could have seen this man,” Marks continued.

According to Marks, one expert prosecution witness stated that the vehicle was travelling between 30 and 50 miles per hour.

“If that person was hit from the front, you would have seen damage to lights and the grill. There’s no evidence he was speeding. Had he seen this man there would have been brakes impression.

In summing up the case, Justice James told the jury that there was no evidence that the deceased was drunk.

The judge said that on the night of the incident, the road was dry and smooth.

He noted that Harry, in his testimony, said he didn’t see the deceased.

“If you were driving, the street well lit and there’s no evidence of any other traffic, wouldn’t you see a man on the left side of the road?”

James said the prosecution’s case was that he told the brother of the deceased he (Harry) thought it was a dog.

“I’m asking you if you think that it is reasonable for someone to see a man and say it was a dog?

“What was the accused man doing when he was driving? There was no other traffic on the road. He was struck over a wall and hit a pole.” James said.

“Ask yourself what speed he would be going to hit a man over a wall?” James also asked the jury.

The judge said when the vehicle was inspected, it was in good working order.

“Was it inattentiveness why the accused didn’t see him? What was he doing why he didn’t see the man on the road?

“There’s no evidence he (deceased) came out of a hole or gap as suggested by counsel Marks. The only evidence is that deceased was on the road and Dr Child’s evidence said most of the injuries were from the front down.

“I’m not asking you to speculate, but something must have or have not happened to him that caused him to hit the deceased.”

James said, from the evidence of Dr Child, the jury can draw inference that the deceased was moving in the opposite direction to the vehicle.

He further added that Child said the amount of alcohol in the deceased’s blood at the time was not such that would cause a person to be drunk.

“Ask yourself why didn’t he see this man?”

Director of Public Prosecutions Colin Williams and crown counsel Carl Williams led the crown’s case.