Police v NM
[2011] QMC 10
•23 June 2011
MAGISTRATES COURTS OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Police v NM [2011] QMC 10
PARTIES:
POLICE
(prosecution)v
NM
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
MAG218762/10(7)
DIVISION:
Magistrates Court
PROCEEDING:
Application for Cross Examination of Witness in a Committal Proceeding
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:
23 June 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:
25 May 2011
MAGISTRATE:
Callaghan BA
ORDER:
Leave is not granted to cross examine SB, CM, WZ, PJ, MT, Senior Constable Graeme Rogers, Senior Constable Jason Ireland, VH, VT, DL, CJ and Senior Constable Evan Condon.
Leave is granted to cross examine VA and Senior Constable David Lonergan
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – PRACTICE AND PROCEEDURE – COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – APPLICATION TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES – onus of proof – defendant’s communication – substantial reasons
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 83A(5AA), s 110B
COUNSEL:
Cuthbert for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
NM (“the defendant”) is charged with one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
The prosecution case is that the deceased, SN was travelling south along Central Avenue Coolum on his motorbike on 12 June 2010 when a car being driven in an easterly direction along Jones Parade by the defendant drove out of Jones Parade without giving way. SN ran into the left side of the car as it passed in front of him through the intersection. Travelling behind the motorbike was a vehicle with five people in it who witnessed the accident. The allegation against the defendant is that she failed to give way at a give way sign and give way road markings at the intersection between Jones Parade and Central Avenue. There is also some evidence from the five witnesses travelling in the vehicle behind the motorbike that the defendant would have been travelling “a bit faster” than the 50 km/h speed limit. It should be noted that there is no allegation that the defendant was excessively speeding as defined in the Criminal Code.
This is an application by the defendant pursuant to s 83A(5AA) of the Justices Act 1886 (“ The Act”) for the direction that the witnesses SB, CM, WZ, PJ, MT, (passengers in the vehicle following the motor bike), Senior Constable Graeme Rogers, Senior Constable Jason Ireland, VA, VH, VT, DL, CJ, Senior Constable Evan Condon and Senior Constable David Lonergan be cross examined. All have made written statements in the matter.
Section 110B (1) of the act provides “a magistrate at a direction hearing must not give a direction under section 83A(5AA) in relation to the maker of a written statement unless the magistrate is satisfied there are substantial reasons why, in the interest of justice, the maker should attend to give oral evidence or be made available for cross examination on the written statement.”
Onus of Proof
The onus rests on the defendant to show that there are substantial reasons why in the interest of justice the witnesses should be made available for cross examination. [1]
[1] See Sim v Magistrate Corbett (2008) NSW SC 665 and Hanna v Kearney (1998) NSW SC
227 and Quami v DPP anor (2008) NSW SC 675 followed in Blacklidge (unreported) decision Deputy Chief Magistrate Hine 11 3 2011 and R v K (unreported decision) Magistrate Callaghan 18 3 2011 and in Police v Ed (unreported decision Magistrate Callaghan 15 4 2011)
S 110B(3)
Section 110B(3) states that an application for a direction under s83A(5AA) may be made only if -
(a)the defendant has, by letter, or by email or some other electronic form of written communication (the defendants communications) advice the prosecution of the following:
i.the name of the maker of the written statement the subject of the application;
ii.the general issues relevant to the making of the application: Examples of general issues/identification evidence, expert opinion evidence
iii.the reasons to be relied on to justify the calling of the maker of the written statement to give oral evidence;
iv.a time (the nominated time) for the prosecution to respond to the defendant’s communication and
(b)the prosecution’s response to the defendant’s communication (the prosecution’s response) has been received, or it has not been received within the nominated time and
(c) there is filed with the application –
i.a copy of the defendant’s communication
ii.The prosecution’s response, if it has been received.
The defendant’s communication consisted of the application by the defendant. Attached to this was an affidavit of the solicitor representing her that had annexed to it a copy of the correspondence sent to the prosecution on 23 March 2011 and a copy of the prosecution’s response. The correspondence sent to the prosecution simply advised that an application for a direction under s 83A(5AA) to cross examine a number of witnesses was going to be made with respect to issues surrounding the position of a parked truck in Jones’s Parade. The number of witnesses sought to be cross examined was 14. It was stated that where the truck was parked was clearly relevant to the element of dangerous operation of the vehicle driven by the defendant. The response from the Prosecution was to reject the application. The response highlighted the fact that the application did not contain sufficient detail for there to be consent to cross examination of the witnesses.
That application was clearly flawed as it did not comply with S 110B(3)(a)(iii). At the commencement of the hearing of the application the prosecution agreed to the matter continuing as it was the first to be determined in this region. Further material had been supplied by the representatives of the defendant with regards to the application. I agreed to the application proceeding even though the defendant had not complied with s 110B(3). A statement requesting to cross examine a number of witnesses with respect to the issues surrounding the position of the parked truck was too vague a reason to be relied upon to justify the calling of any of those witnesses. The reasons for wishing to cross examine these witnesses were expanded upon at the hearing and the areas the defendant sought to cross examine the witnesses on was not confined to the position of the truck..
Substantial Reasons why in the interest of justice cross examination ought to be allowed
S 110B(1) requires a magistrate to not give directions pursuant to s 83A(5AA) in relation to the maker of a written statement unless the magistrate is satisfied that there are substantial reasons why in the interest of justice the maker should attend to give oral evidence or to be made available for cross examination on the written statement. This section was inserted into the act in 2010 as a result of the passing of “Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction Reform and Modernisation Amendment Act 2010”.
In R v K (unreported decision of Magistrate Callaghan 18.3.2011) the decision of Hanna v Kearney anor (1998) 44 NSW Law Reports 618 was summarised as follows:
1. The primary aim of the legislative intention was to limit the time occupied in committal proceedings. Committal proceedings are not to provide the opportunity for a full dress rehearsal for trials. Cross examination is to be eliminated unless it is required in the interest of justice for reasons that are reasons of substance;
2. There can be no rigid or exhaustive definition of what constitutes “substantial reasons”. The application to cross examine requires identification and consideration of the objective of the cross examiner and the framework of the prosecution case. To require a witness to be cross examined without a definite aim but in the hope of a eliciting some evidence that might prove to be useful to the defence would not constitute “substantial reasons”;
3. It would be wrong to limit “substantial reasons” to situations where cross examination is likely to result in the discharge of the defendant or establish grounds for a no true bill application or to limit it to situations where such cross examination is likely to substantially undermine the credibility of an important witness. “Substantial reasons” may also be found elsewhere.
4. In any such application to cross examine a witness the fundamental objective of committal proceedings must be born in mind, namely the objective of facilitating a fair trial. This may mean that there are substantial reasons for requiring a witness for cross examination for a proper understanding of the nature of the prosecution case or for an understanding of the basis of a relative opinion held by a witness. These examples are not meant to be exhaustive.
5. “Substantial Reasons” may be shown where cross examination may lead to the narrowing of matters in dispute. …this is a consideration of particular importance where the prospect exists of a lengthy trial. [2]
[2] Police v Ed unreported decision of Magistrate Callaghan 15 April 2011
Each case depends on its own facts and there can be no rigid or exhaustive definition as to what constitute “ substantial reasons”. [3] Justice Fullerton (Qaumi v DPP 186 Crim R 72) adopted Whealy J summary in Sim v Corbett [2006] NSWSC665 wherein the following points were made:
[3] RvK 1998 44NSW Law Report 618 in Quami v Director of Public Prosecutions anor 2008
NSW SC 675
1. The process is an important part of the proceedings. The refusal of an application may have significant impact upon the ability of the defendant to defend himself. As well, prosecution has a real interest in ensuring only appropriate matters are sent for trial.
2. Each case will depend on its own facts and circumstances. It is not possible to define exhaustively or even at all what might in a particular case constitute substantial reasons. It may be a situation where cross-examination may result in the discharge of the defendant or lead to a successful no bill application; it may be a situation where cross-examination is likely to undermine substantially the credit of a significant witness. It may simply be a situation where cross-examination is necessary to avoid the defendant being taken by surprise at trial. The categories are not closed and flexibility of approach is required in the light of the issues that may arise in a particular matter.
3. Another example of a “substantial reason” may be where the attendance of a witness is sought to enable cross examination in respect to a matter which itself might give rise to a discretion or determination to reject evidence at trial.
4. The reasons advanced must have substance in the context of the committal proceedings.
Fullerton J in Quami further said “Self evidently, not all contradictions or inconsistencies between witnesses warrant interrogation at a Committal Proceeding.”
This application
This application according to the defence fundamentally concerns a narrow issue as to whether or not where the truck was parked in relation to the give way sign impeded the view of the defendant when she was driving eastward along Jones Parade towards Central Avenue on 12 June 2010. A number of witnesses sought to be cross examined do not mention the truck at all. There are two witnesses who recall seeing the truck parked in a location that obscured the give way sign. There are also other issues raised by the defence with regards to a number of witnesses – these issues are peripheral to the narrow issue that is raised by the defence however it is my intention to go through each of the witnesses sought to be cross examined and the reasons why this is sought. The prosecution continued its objection to the application generally on the grounds that what was being sought was peripheral to the charge being faced by the defendant and what was put forward could not be said to be substantial reasons why cross examination ought to be allowed in the interest of justice.
SB
SB was the driver of the vehicle that was following the motorcycle and witnessed the accident. He gave a statement to the police on what he saw and his impressions as to what he believed the speed was of the car that the motor cycle ran into. His statement makes no mention of the truck being parked in Jones Parade. The defendant wishes to cross examine as to whether or not he can recall the truck being parked there, and whether or not it had been moved, what type of car he was driving, what the registration was and whether or not he was licensed and his experience in calculating speed. The prosecution objects to the proposed cross examination. It argues that the issues sought to be cross examined on in particular with regards to whether or not SB was licensed are not relevant to the case and at best are peripheral to the charge being faced by the defendant. As to whether or not SB saw the truck, the prosecution is of the view that this could be easily dealt with by way of an addendum statement.
CM
CM was a passenger in the vehicle driven by SB and he gave a statement to the police on his observations. The defendant wishes to question CM as to where he was sitting in the vehicle, whether or not he saw the truck and his experience at establishing speed. Where CM was sitting is addressed in his statement as are his comments with regard to the speed of the defendant’s vehicle. The prosecution position on CM is the same as for SB.
WZ
WZ was a passenger in the vehicle driven by SB and the defendant wishes to cross examine WZ as to where he was sitting in the vehicle, whether or not he saw the truck and his ability to estimate speed. WZ’s statement covers where he was sitting and whilst not giving an estimate of speed says that the vehicle was travelling fairly quickly as the vehicle was upon the bike rider straight away and the bike rider had no time to do anything. The prosecution’s position for WZ is the same as for SB.
PJ
PJ was a passenger in the vehicle driven by SB and he gave a statement to the police as to his recollection of the events. The defendant wishes to cross examine PJ as to where he was sitting in the vehicle, whether or not he noticed a truck and his ability to estimate speed. Where PB was sitting is addressed in his statement. PB does not give an estimate of the speed however he does state “from where I was seated this car was not travelling slowly it just appeared from nowhere. It was travelling fairly quickly as it was upon the bike rider straight away and he had no time to do anything.” Prosecution’s response is the same as for SB.
MT
MT was a passenger in the vehicle driven by SB and the defendant wishes to cross examine MT as to where he was sitting in the vehicle, whether or not he noticed the truck parked in Jones Parade and his ability to estimate speed. Where MT was sitting is in his statement. He also does not mention an actual speed however he does state “from where I was seated this car was not travelling slowly it just appeared suddenly from the right. It was travelling fairly quickly as it was upon the bike rider straight away and he had no time to do anything.” Prosecution’s response is the same as for SB.
All of the above witnesses were in the car driven by SB and none of them mentioned the truck and it is quite possible that they never noticed the truck. They were travelling along Central Avenue. The other aspect raised by the defence is that each of their statements is very similar to the others. The defence argued that it was important to know the make, model and year of the car and also the registration to determine whether the car was registered and the driver was licensed in order to establish whether SB had any interest in giving evidence that may be favourable to the police case. Defence argues that the fact that all of the statements of the passengers were all very similar raised questions of reliability and credibility. The defence wants to cross examine to establish whether or not their evidence was in fact their evidence or whether or not they wanted to give evidence that was favourable to the police.
Initially the objective of the defence in seeking to cross examine these witnesses was to find out whether or not they noticed a truck parked in Jones Parade and whether or not they noticed this truck being moved. No substantial reason was given why in the interest of justice cross examination ought to be allowed on this point. Their evidence is not required to properly understand the nature of the prosecution case or to understand the basis of any opinion held by those witnesses. Further whether or not they saw the truck parked in Jones Parade does not narrow any the issues that the defendant has to address in this matter. I reject the application to cross examine these five witnesses as to whether or not they saw the truck. I note that in the prosecutions submissions that they proposed to seek an addendum statement to establish whether or not any of these witnesses noticed the truck and if so whether they noticed it being moved.
The other matter that the defendant wishes to cross examine these five witnesses on was their ability to estimate speed. This is not central to the charge the defendant is facing. Each of these witnesses in their statements makes a comment with regards to the speed of the defendant’s vehicle with only one of them estimating that she was travelling a bit faster than the 50km/h speed limit. The others give an explanation of what they saw with regard to the defendant’s vehicle and the bike rider hitting that vehicle and no substantial reason has been given in the interest of justice why cross examination on this aspect should be allowed. I reject the application that these five witnesses should be cross examined on their ability to estimate speed.
The other aspect raised by the defence is that the statements of these five witnesses are similar and this would go to the reliability of these statements and the credibility of them as witnesses. The statements are similar but this does not mean that they are not reliable. They were all travelling in the one car and all witnessed the accident which resulted in the death of a person – they would have discussed what they saw amongst themselves – I am not surprised that their statements are similar but this in my view does not make them unreliable nor does it bring their credit into question. Even if each of these witnesses were found to be unreliable or lacking in credit this would not narrow the issues or change the case that the defendant has to face. No substantial reason has been given as to why cross examination ought to be allowed to check the reliability of these statements or the credibility of the makers of the statement because they are so similar and I therefore reject that part of the application.
The other aspect sought to be cross examined on is the make of the vehicle being driven by SB, its registration and whether or not SB was licensed. Clearly these matters are peripheral to the issues the defendant has to address in answering the charge that is before the court.
None of the areas sought to be cross-examined on go to the heart of the case that the defendant has to meet. None of the issues raised have anything to do with the elements of the charge of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death.
No substantial reason in the interest of justice has been given for the need to cross examine any of these five witnesses on any of the issues raised and I reject that part of the application.
Police Officers first on the scene
Graeme Thomas Rodgers
Graeme Thomas Rodgers is a Senior Constable Police Officer and he came upon the collision immediately after it had occurred. He has given a statement as to his observations when he arrived. He makes no mention of the truck. Once against substantial reasons have not been advanced as to why in the interest of justice cross examination ought to be allowed of Rodgers as to what his observations were. I note once again the prosecutions comments with regards to the ability to obtain the addendum statement with regards to recollections as to whether or not the truck was there and if it was there whether or not it was moved. Whether or not Rodgers saw the truck is not going to narrow the issues that the court has to deal with, nor does it make the case faced by the defendant any different from what she is currently facing. The defence argues that the failure of some prosecution witnesses to even mention the truck raises issues of credit which require exploration in the interests of justice – how and whose credit is questioned? The failure of some witnesses to mention the truck does not raise issues of credit – it might have been that they simply did not see the truck or if they saw it did not realise its relevance. It should be noted that the only two people who mentioned the parked truck obscuring the give way sign (other than the drivers of the truck) were the only people who moved down Jones Parade in the direction that the defendant had gone in. I am not of the view that a substantial reason in the interest of justice has been established to have me make an order to allow for cross examination of this witness.
Jason Noel Ireland
Constable Ireland was performing duties with Rodgers and came upon the scene of the accident immediately after it had occurred. My comments concerning Rodgers above are applicable here and I reject the application to cross examine Constable Ireland.
VH, VJ and VA
VA lived at 46 Jones Parade, Coolum Beach with his wife and family and he was employed as a truck driver. As part of his employment he regularly drove his work vehicle which was a 4.5 tonne Isuzu Flat Body Tray Truck to his home and parked it outside on the footpath in Jones Parade. VA heard the crash on 12.6.2010. He gave a written statement to the Police that covered not only his observations of what occurred after the accident with regards to individuals involved in the accident but also that he had a truck that was parked outside his home and he had endeavoured to move it whilst emergency services were still at the scene because it was required at his son’s home for servicing. He states that he didn’t remember moving the truck but did remember getting in it and attempting to drive forward when he realised he could not get out. From that point, VA does not remember whether he reversed the truck back into its original position. He states that he may have left it there but if he did then he would have left it in a position that would have appeared to other people as blocking the give way sign. He states that he told his son about an hour after the accident to take the truck around to his other son’s place to have it greased. He also states that the next day he saw a police officer outside his home inspecting the scene of the accident and he made an arrangement with that police officer to bring his work truck home so that photographs could be taken. His statement covers evidence of a reconstruction on 28th June 2010 as to where the truck was parked on 12th June 2010 from which photographs were taken that allegedly show the defendant’s view as she drove down Jones Parade on the day of the accident. The defendant has applied to have VA available for cross examination on a large number of issues including the registration of the truck, its size and dimensions (this has been addressed in the statement and even though there was some confusion as to what truck was parked there on 12 June 2010 – the truck that was parked there on that day was confirmed by VA to be the one photographed) and the size and dimensions of the second truck that was also owned by the company and was occasionally driven by VA, who the registered owners were and a service history of both trucks, the time at which he says he went to move the truck, what vehicles he recalls were parking him in, and where they were parked, the time the vehicle was finally moved, how and by what manner the truck was returned from the sons place back to Jones Parade after being serviced and details as to where he says he parked that truck on the footpath. The defendant raises the issue that VA may have had an interest in removing the truck immediately particularly if he was the registered owner. None of these issues raised by the defendant (except for the reconstruction) goes to the heart of the issue the defendant has to face. All of these issues are peripheral to the matters the court has to deal with. There does not seem to be a definite aim in this proposed cross examination but merely a hope of eliciting some evidence that might prove to be useful to the defence (see Hannah v Kearney) – none of the reasons put forward in support of the application to cross examine on these matters amount to substantial reasons why in the interest of justice the cross examination ought to be allowed.
Another issue that the defence wishes to cross examine on concerns the reconstruction of where the truck was allegedly parked on the day of the accident from which photographs were taken to depict the view the defendant would have had on the day in question. Questions concerning this reconstruction – VA’s memory as to where the truck was parked on the day of the accident and whether this has been accurately depicted in the photographs could have some bearing on whether a trial judge excludes the photographs. This is a substantial reason why in the interest of justice cross examination ought to occur on the reconstruction. I grant the application to question VA on this.
VH
The defendant also sought to cross examine VH as to the parking habits of the trucks on the footpath. The defendant conceded that VH was the least important of VH, VJ and VA with regards to being available for cross examination. There is no substantial reason given as to why VH should be called in to be cross examined on her statement which in fact does not address the issue of where the trucks were generally parked. It is a peripheral issue and therefore cross examination of VH will not be allowed.
VT
VT is the son of VA and he gave a statement to the police covering the fact that he was a delivery truck driver and he bought small trucks home after work. His statement covered the fact that he knew that his father VA had parked the work truck on the grassed area outside the house on the western side of Jones Parade. He described the truck that was parked there and states that the trucks are always parked on the grassed area when not being used. He states that he and his father parked the trucks as close as they can to the fence of the property to keep it away from the edge of the road and he states that he uses a Telstra pit as reference when parking the truck so that when he drives out he doesn’t run over it. He states that the pit is at least 2 metres back from the give way sign and that he and his father always park further back than the pit so that they can turn out in one go. He states that he often parked at least 2 metres further back from the pit. He also states that later in the afternoon of 12.6.2010 he got into the truck that had been parked there and drove it to his brother’s house for a grease service. He states that the truck was parked where it was usually parked before he moved it and when he moved it there were emergency services vehicles still at the crash scene. The defendant wishes to cross examine VT as to the parking habits on the footpath, his recollection of what truck was parked there on 12 June 2010, the position in which it was parked, whether there were arrangements earlier in the day for the transportation to the other sons residence for service. The defendant also wishes to cross examine VT as to when he moved the truck on the 12 June 2010 and whether he had any knowledge of the arrangments with regards to the reconstruction and return of the vehicle for the reconstruction. The majority of these issues that are sought to be cross examined on are outlined in VT’s statement in detail and no substantial reason has been given why in the interest of justice there ought to be cross examination of VT on them. His statement is clear and no ambiguity is raised. Other matters raised and not addressed in VT’s statement such as the arrangements earlier in the day for the transportation of the truck to the other son’s residence and his knowledge of the reconstruction on 28th June 2010 are peripheral issues not relevant to the case the defendant has to face. I dismiss the application to cross examine VT.
DL and CJ
Both of these witnesses live in Jones Parade, Coolum Beach. Both of them state that they were aware of the accident on the 12 June 2010.
DL states that she heard the crash, she went to the front of her house and looked down Jones Parade towards the intersection with Central Avenue and saw that there had been an accident. She walked down to the intersection and as she approached the intersection she “saw that there was a truck parked on the footpath (northern footpath) of the house on the north western corner on that intersection. The truck was parked on the northern footpath of Jones parade and I saw that it was obscuring the give way sign on that footpath.”
CJ states that he recalls walking down to the intersection and he noticed a truck parked up on the footpath alongside the side fence of the house on the corner. It was parked back from the give way sign. The house where the truck was parked is situated on the north western corner. He saw that the truck was blocking the give way sign erected on the north western corner of that intersection.
The evidence of both these people is clear. The defendant wishes to cross examine both as to where the truck was parked. That is already dealt with in their statements. No substantial reason has been given why in the interest of justice the defendant should be allowed to cross examine these two people. Application to cross examine them is denied.
Evan Malcolm Condon
Evan Condon is a Constable of the Police who attended the scene of the accident. His statement covers what he observed on that day including the assistance that he gave Senior Constable Lonergan with regards to the markings on the road. The defendant wishes to cross examine Condon to see whether or not he recalls the truck being there. Once again no substantial reasons have been given for the need to cross examine Condon with regards to the truck. Application to cross examine is denied.
David Lonergan
Senior Constable David Lonergan is with the forensic crash unit at the Sunshine Coast and he made a statement with regards to this accident and is the main investigating person with regards to this accident. He attended the scene on 12 June 2010 arriving at 3:40pm. He makes comments with regards to markings on the road, damage to both vehicles and his returning to the scene on the following day to take further measurements. He also refers to the fact that he spoke to VA and made arrangements with him to park the truck in the position that he believed he parked in on the day of the crash. This occurred some time after the visit on 13 June 2010. He states that when VA parked the truck in the position it had been parked in on the day of the crash, he (Lonergan) took a number of photographs depicting the view the defendant had leading to the crash location. The defendant wishes to cross examine Lonergan with regards to the circumstances of the reconstruction and also wished to cross examine Lonergan with regards to the location of the yellow markings on the road and other markings and his interpretation with regards to those markings and the yaw marks on the road. The defence also wished to question Lonergan as to whether or not he saw the truck on the 12 June 2010.
I refer to my remarks with regard to cross examination of VA and the reconstruction and for the same reason it is appropriate that the defence is able to cross examine Lonergan on the reconstruction – how it transpired that the reconstruction occurred, where exactly VA parked the truck for the reconstruction and how sure VA was at the time that where he parked the truck was the location of the truck on the day of the accident,
With regards to Lonergan’s interpretation of the yaw marks and the location of the yellow markings on the road it is appropriate that cross examination be allowed on this so as to ensure that the defendant knows the case she is facing and what is to be alleged from the prosecution arising out of the markings on the road. I grant the application to cross examine Lonergan on these matters.
The defence also raised the issue that if cross examination on these issues were allowed they may lead to issues of credit and was seeking leeway to cross examine as to that. It is not clear to me whose credit the defence is referring to and how this would have a bearing on the case the defendant is to face. Leeway is not given to allow for cross examination as to credit. If the limited cross examination allowed raises a substantial reason why in the interest of justice further cross examination ought to be allowed on a particular matter then at that time a further application can be made to the Magistrate conducting the committal.
It should be remembered the purpose of a committal is to ensure that a prima facie case exists to warrant a defendant being put on trial and that a committal is not a full dress rehearsal of the trial (see Hanna v Kearney).
I grant leave for cross examination of VA on the reconstruction and of Lonergan on the reconstruction and his interpretation of the markings on the road including the yellow markings and the yaw markings.
I direct the prosecution to make available for cross examination VA and David Lonergan.
0
0
1