Select a region
Jersey's Royal Court will hear the evidence today of a 39-year-old woman who is accused of causing the death of three-year-old Clinton Pringle by dangerous driving.
Rebekah Le Gal, who is pleading not guilty to the charge, admitted in her police interviews that she had sent a text to her son from her van, but argued it was well before she hit Clinton, and so didn't cause the accident.
HM Solicitor General, Mark Temple, who is leading the prosecution read out a series of witnesses' statements in Court on Tuesday.
One of them was from José Fonseca, who made the first call to 999. He said he was in his flat when his friend, Francisco Gouveia, called him to tell him he was waiting outside. As he got out of his flat, he saw his friend crouched down and shouting at the driver of a black van to 'keep going.' When the vehicle moved, he saw his friend lift Clinton, before his mum, Stacey, and his aunt, Melissa Anderson, picked him up.
The court heard that Mrs. Le Gal explained in her police interviews she had sent a text to her son ahead of the accident, but couldn't explain why phone data didn't match her statement - she argued she had sent the text earlier, and so longer before the accident, than the data seemed to suggest.
Tim Knights, JT's Head of Mobile, signed a statement stating there had been no network issues on 27 June 2016.
Darren Lopez Rubio, a mobile phone expert who examined Mrs. Le Gal's mobile, explained that the phone records the time the message is sent, the time it is received and the time it is read. When questioned by Mrs. Le Gal's Advocate, Matthew Jowitt, he explained that there can possibly be some delay between the time a message is sent and the moment it leaves the phone, but that he had never experienced such a delay while using iMessage as Mrs. Le Gal had done on the day.
The prosecution is expected to call its final witness this morning as proceedings resume. Mrs. Le Gal is then due to take the stand to give evidence in her own defence.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.