A man accused of drink-driving and causing his friend to be seriously injured in a crash may not have been driving the car, the Supreme Court heard yesterday.

John Wardman, 29, of Paget, denies causing grievous bodily harm to Alexander Doyle while driving over the legal blood-alcohol limit, driving while impaired and failing to provide Mr Doyle with the necessaries of life on December 27, 2010.

Prosecutors allege Mr Wardman was driving home with his brother, Christopher Wardman, and Mr Doyle after a night’s drinking when he crashed into two walls in Paget.

The jury heard last week that Christopher Wardman initially told police he was responsible for the crash, although officers said he reversed his version of events almost immediately after being arrested, fingering the defendant as the culprit.

Yesterday, forensic consultant Dr Guy Cooper, an expert in glass transfer evidence, told the jury he could not determine whether particles on the defendant’s clothes and face were definitely glass, or that these ended up on him because he was driving when the vehicle crashed, causing windows to smash.

He said a report by Bermuda Police Service Inspector Philip Lewis, of the Traffic Collision Investigation Unit, stated that John Wardman had glass on his sweater and eyebrows, and glass fragments were visible in photographs taken after the crash.

But Dr Cooper told the jury you could not tell from photographs if these particles were indeed glass, and that forensic analysis was the only way to determine this.

“[Analysis] is never done from photographs,” he said. “One or two of those fragments might turn out to be glass but it’s hard to tell even under a microscope.

“Certainly from a photo you can see particles but to attribute them as glass is impossible.”

Mr Daniels asked Dr Cooper and the jury to look at photographs of John and Christopher Wardman taken after the accident.

The expert said that just because there were no visible fragments on Christopher Wardman, this did not mean they were not there, and there could be particles in his coat’s fur collar that were invisible to the naked eye.

Dr Cooper also questioned a section of Inspector Lewis’s report outlining that if John Wardman was in the passenger seat it was unlikely he would have shards of glass on his face or clothes.

“I’ve conducted glass-breaking experiments and glass will travel two to three metres,” Dr Cooper said. “[Fragments] would travel to the passenger side.”

Defence lawyer Marc Daniels asked Dr Cooper if “based on the photos and statements, are you able to say that the presence of apparent glass on John Wardman is indicative of him driving the vehicle in the accident?”

“No, I’d expect glass on him whether he was in the front passenger seat or the driver’s seat,” Dr Cooper replied.

“He may have put his hands on surfaces when leaving [the car] by whatever means. It’s like sand on a beach — you can get glass on your hand, you can transfer glass fragments.

“He sat on the bonnet of the car and there would be glass on that.”

Prosecutor Victoria Greening highlighted that Dr Cooper was not an expert in road traffic reconstruction and that other forces could affect how car windows smashed in a collision.

The expert agreed with her suggestion that if “something made of glass smashes in the vicinity of a person, it’s very likely glass will be deposited on to that person or their clothes”.

He also agreed that if John Wardman was in “close proximity” to cracked glass, it was possible that fragments would land on him.

The trial in front of Judge Charles-Etta Simmons continues.