A prosecutor in a trial around a fatal collision accused an expert traffic witness of ignoring evidence that did not line up with his theory.

Carrington Mahoney, for the Crown, further accused Philip Lewis of failing to do his due diligence and locate all the information needed for a complete investigation into the death of Marco Warren.

Mr Lewis denied the claims and instead accused the prosecution of not properly delivering their evidence leading up to the trial of Curtis Richardson.

Mr Richardson, 51, has denied causing Mr Warren’s death by driving without due care and attention in the early hours of May 14, 2023.

The incident was alleged to have happened near the intersection of North Shore Road and Trinity Church Road, Hamilton.

Mr Lewis, who was brought forward by the defence on Monday, earlier told the Supreme Court that he believed there was “no contact between the vehicle and the deceased”.

He referred to a lack of lower-leg injuries found on Mr Warren’s body, which he said indicated he was not upright when struck.

Mr Lewis suggested Mr Warren was laying in the road on the night of the alleged incident and might have been struck by a “ghost vehicle” — a Mazda-like car spotted by one other witness.

However, during cross-examination from Mr Mahoney, he later admitted the side of Mr Richardson’s taxi might have struck the alleged victim — but held it might not have been serious.

Continuing yesterday’s cross-examination, Mr Lewis still denied the defendant was involved in a head-on collision.

He explained: “Even in a low impact, there would be dents on the vehicle.”

Mr Lewis added: “I gave an overview and I do not believe Mr Warren was standing while he was struck — and I stand by that.”

When asked if he should have done an addendum to his report reflecting the changes in opinion, Mr Lewis said: “No, because it was ultimately the same.”

Mr Lewis said he did not see the video footage taken by an investigating officer, nor did he make any requests to find and review the footage.

When asked why, he said the footage would not have made a difference.

Mr Lewis further said he read a statement by Sergeant Jewel Hayward, who took photographs of the crash site, autopsy and vehicles, but did not attempt to see the photographs himself.

He added he did not try to access the initial transcripts himself. Mr Mahoney asked: “Do you think that would have been you job as a thorough and just investigator?”

Mr Lewis said he was reliant on the information given to the defence by the prosecution, which he said was frequently delayed.

He admitted: “My investigation was sporadic in some way. I’m not making excuses, but I worked with the information I had at the time to the best of my ability.”

Mr Mahoney denied this and said all the information was handed over by 2024.

Mr Lewis said the information would have “taken time to get back to me”.

Mr Mahoney later said: “With respect, you are ignoring the other evidence because it doesn’t support your opinion.”

Mr Lewis responded: “It had no bearing on the physical evidence.”

The prosecutor later asked if he measured an indentation made above Mr Warren’s knee.

Mr Lewis said he did not because he had no access to the body and “cannot measure off of somebody’s measurements”.

He added that he accepted the measurements made in the autopsy photographs as genuine.

The trial, before Puisne Judge Alan Richards, continues.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding criminal court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case