Driver tried to blame alleged crash victim, trial hears – The Royal Gazette | Bermuda News, Business, Sports, Events, & Community

Log In

Reset Password
BERMUDA | RSS

Driver tried to blame alleged crash victim, trial hears

A 74-year-old driver charged with causing grievious bodily harm to a magistrate was yesterday accused of trying to shift the blame on to the alleged victim.

Nicole Smith, for the Crown, told Magistrates’ Court that Brian Alkon failed to pay attention to his surroundings and forced Mr Attridge to “jackknife” his bicycle, fall off and fracture his collarbone.

She added: “Despite him almost taking the blame by inference, he wants to come to court and put himself in the best possible light and project the blame on Mr Attridge.”

Mr Alkon denies causing grievous bodily harm to Craig Attridge by driving a vehicle without due care and attention.

He faces an alternative charge of driving without due care and attention.

But Michael Scott, for the defence, said that the evidence against his client was flawed and failed to establish guilt.

The incident was alleged to have happened on April 21 last year as Mr Alkon tried to join Secretary Road in St George’s at its junction with Bourne Drive.

Ms Smith said that witnesses, including Mr Alkon, had said that Bourne Drive had a “clear, unobstructed view” of Secretary Road.

She added that the good view and Mr Attridge’s bright clothing should have been enough for Mr Alkon to spot the alleged victim on his left.

Ms Smith said that Mr Alkon’s testimony, where he said that he lifted the bike off the injured magistrate and called 911 was a lie to make himself look a “good Samaritan”.

She added that another witness testified they called 911 and that Mr Attridge’s wife, Kirsteen Anne, who was on her own bicycle ahead of Mr Attridge, said she went to retrieve her phone from their house because Mr Alkon said he did not have a phone with him.

Ms Smith said: “If Mr Alkon didn’t believe that he was at fault, why would he approach the Attridges a few months later while they were walking their dog and ask Mr Attridge ’am I the person who knocked you off your bike’?

“’Knocked you off your bike’ implies that he was the cause of the accident and now, over a year later, because he’s at trial, he wants to come to court and say that this not what happened.”

She told acting magistrate Marc Daniels: “The Crown will say this – a lot of the evidence that he said within the last few hearings is untrue or has been embellished.”

Mr Scott said that the Crown’s claim that Mr Alkon’s apology suggested guilt was not supported by the evidence given by Mr Attridge.

He added: “The case of Mr Attridge from the witness box is that he was put in an emergency situation – he hit brakes, he jackknifed, fell off his cycle on to his shoulder and sustained injuries.

“There’s no knocking at all, so it’s odd that my friend is relying on a theory that never came through their main witness.“

Mr Scott said that his client insisted that Mr Attridge rear-ended his car which caused the bike to jackknife.

He said that anyone who hit a vehicle from behind was held at fault unless there was evidence to suggest otherwise.

Mr Scott highlighted a traffic case that was thrown out of court because the exact point of impact could not be established.

He said that, because there were no other witnesses who supported the claim by Mr Attridge that he did not hit the car, it was only fair that the case was dismissed.

The trial 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.