Woman who hit a granite wall denies drink driving

Thursday 14 June 2018

A 62-year-old woman who hit a granite wall in a car park in St. Ouen has denied driving after having too much to drink.

Jean Kathleen Richard was on trial for three driving offences in the Magistrate’s Court: driving over the influence, dangerous driving and careless driving. She has pleaded not guilty to all of them.

Summing up the prosecution case, Legal Adviser Susie Sharpe told Assistant Magistrate Peter Harris that all offences happened on the same night, 8 October 2017.

Ms Sharpe said that on the night, a witness had driven behind Ms Richard from Milbrook Park to St. Peter's Valley. He said she was continuously slowing down and speeding up. He also said that at some point, she was fully on the opposite side of the road, so much that he thought she had touched a boundary hedge. Ms Sharpe said that the road had a bend meaning any oncoming vehicle would have been unable to see Ms Richards on the wrong side of the road.

Ms Sharpe described the witness's testimony as "evidence of lengthy and persistent dangerous driving." "It was not momentary, it was a continuous falling below standards," she added.

Pictured: Ms Richard hit a granite wall in a car park in St. Ouen on her way home.

Ms Sharpe said that Ms Richard had been careless while driving in a car park in St. Ouen as she had hit a granite wall. "It was a momentary lapse," she told Court. "But it was significant enough for the airbag to deploy and all the protective measures to go off inside the vehicle." 

She also reminded Court that a witness had said the car was full of smoke and that she couldn't see inside it as Ms Richard was driving off. Ms Sharpe said it was yet further evidence of Ms Richard's careless driving as she had driven off with her car shortly after the bump, without carrying out any checks.

Ms Sharpe disputed Ms Richard's account that she had drunk alcohol at home and not before driving. Ms Sharpe said that if it had been the case and Ms Richard had drunk a "significant amount of straight brandy," she would have been "grossly intoxicated without the shadow of a doubt."

Yet, Ms Sharpe said she didn't seem drunk when police officers spoke to her shortly after the incident. Ms Richard took a breathalyser test and gave six incomplete breath samples. She was eventually found to be over the legal limit. "This is because the alcohol was consumed prior to driving," said Ms Sharpe. "This was alcohol wearing off, not spiking into her system. She was becoming more and more sober at the time officers spoke with her. It follows that her driving was impaired because of alcohol in her system."

Alexander English, Ms Richard's advocate, said she had drunk after arriving home, leading to her being above the limit when officers undertook a breathalyser test. "She did not drink on the Sunday. At the time of driving there was no alcohol in her system, unless there was some kind of wonder or some biological quirk," he said. "She only consumed alcohol after she got home and before the police officers arrived, around an hour before."

Advocate English added that a friend with whom Ms Richard had spent the day prior to the incident had said she hadn't had a drink the whole day. 

He disputed there had been any near-miss with another vehicle or any near head-on crash.

Advocate English said Ms Richard denied going over the middle line. She said she was slowing down when approaching the bends, which she described as being safer driving rather than dangerous.

 The Assistant Magistrate will return his judgment on the trial at the end of the month. Ms Richard has been remanded on bail in the meantime.