A Supreme Court jury is to start deliberations today in the case of Albert Nisbitt who faces charges of causing the death, by reckless or dangerous driving, of Antonio DeFrias in an early morning accident two years ago.

At the close of yesterday's session, defence lawyer Julian Hall urged the ten-woman, two-man jury not to be swayed by sympathy or outrage over Mr.

DeFrias' passing.

The 30-year-old landscape worker was on his way to work at about 6.30 on the morning of May 20, 1995 on North Shore Road near Shelly Bay, when he collided with Nisbitt's taxi.

At the close of the Crown's case, Nisbitt declined to give evidence in his own defence. However a statement he had made to Police, as well as the record of a question and answer session with accident investigators, was read in to the record.

According to his own statement, Nisbitt had drinks at five different bars or clubs in the hours leading up to the accident, and had only one hour of sleep in the 24 hours before the fatal collision.

Mr. Nisbitt's Police statement was read to the Court yesterday by P.c. Wesley Watson.

During his interview, Nisbitt said he had drinks with friends at about 9.15 the previous evening, drinking through the night at various places until just after 5 a.m. when he went to pick up passengers and take them to the airport.

Estimates of the total number of drinks he consumed in that time vary. The Policeman questioning Nisbitt the day after the accident estimated he had 10 drinks over a period of seven hours.

Nisbitt said he was travelling west on North Shore Road when the accident occurred. He added that Mr. DeFrias' cycle cut across the yellow line, hitting his taxi in the front. The driver maintained he was in his lane at the time of the crash.

He also told Police he "may have dozed off'', just before the accident. Crown Counsel Charlene Scott argued the evidence suggested Mr. Nisbitt was under the influence of alcohol and suffering from sleep deprivation, and these factors contributed to the crash.

Shortly after the accident, Mr. Nisbitt took an alco-analyser test and was found to have between 1.72 and 1.77 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood -- more than twice the legal limit.

Drawing the jury's attention to photographs from the scene and referring to the pattern of debris recorded by Police, she invited the jury to conclude that Mr. Nisbitt had veered on to the wrong side of the road, causing DeFrias' death through reckless driving.

Ms Scott pointed out that Mr. Nisbitt is charged with two offences, telling the jury they were to establish if he was, or was not, guilty of causing death by reckless driving, and in the event of a not guilty verdict, they were to consider whether he had caused death by dangerous driving, which is a different charge.

Elaborating on this point, Mr. Hall walked the jury through the legal definitions of reckless and dangerous driving.

He said the prosecution had a high burden of proof which they had not met, adding there was no evidence to suggest that the manner of Mr. Nisbitt's driving prior to the crash was either dangerous or reckless.

According to Mr. Hall, evidence that his client had been drinking and was tired at the time is not enough to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

"He may have been drinking, but that does not mean he was in the wrong lane, or that he was speeding, or that he failed to keep a proper look out when driving.

"There is no eyewitness evidence that suggests Mr. Nisbitt was in the wrong lane, or that the manner in which he drove his taxi, caused the death of Antonio DeFrias,'' Mr. Hall said.