5/15/2007 6:03:00 PM Man cleared in fatal bike crash
Free man: Donald Iain MacDonald, centre, was unanimously cleared of killing his best friend's girlfriend in a 2005 bike crash yesterday. *Photo by Leah Furbert
A Scotsman unanimously cleared of killing his best friend's girlfriend in a bike crash bowed to the jury before walking to his freedom gasping for breath in relief this afternoon.
Donald Iain MacDonald, 29, a waiter at the Henry VIII Restaurant, made no comment before gathering with a small coterie of supporters after all 12 jury members found him not guilty of causing the death of Canadian waitress Anett Farkas, 24, by dangerous driving in 2005.
The 10 men and two women jury heard evidence in the two-day trial that Mr. MacDonald, of Hilltop Drive, Southampton, was towing Ms Farkas on a motorcycle on Sept. 5 when they collided with Vincent Hewey, 16, of Fenton's Drive, Pembroke, who was driving a motorcycle towards them as they looked for parking space near the House of India restaurant.
"This has been a stressful and long ordeal for him," his barrister, Richard Horseman, said afterwards. "He's grateful to the jury for arriving at their verdict."
In a formal admission that Puisne Judge Carlisle Greaves read aloud to the jury, Mr. MacDonald acknowledged that Ms Farkas died in the collision but he didn't admit causing her death.
The court heard conflicting evidence, with Mr. Hewey saying that he was travelling west along Parsons Road onto North Street within the speed limit, while Mr. MacDonald said that Mr. Hewey was "right on me" about a metre away when he first saw the younger man.
He said that he had looked before turning and seen nothing.
Mr. Hewey told the jury that he saw a motorcycle headlight then it disappeared and he thought the driver was allowing him right-of-way.
He braked, saw the motorcycle cross his path and braked twice more, skidding to avoid it.
There were no skid marks found on the road.
The youth also testified that Mr. MacDonald several times at the scene admitted fault and later did so in a telephone call to him.
Mr. Hewey denied a defence allegation that he was speeding or that he entered North Street from around the corner on Union Street very near the restaurant.
Mr. MacDonald said that he signalled to turn right and cross the street by the restaurant and saw and heard no approaching vehicle.
He also said that he heard no rapid acceleration.
However, as he was crossing North Street and was "fully into" the offside lane, Ms Farkas shouted: "Iain, no! Iain."
At that point he looked to his left and saw a motorcycle one to two metres from him.
It hit him and his own bike fell to the ground and stayed there with Ms Farkas motionless on the road one or two metres away.
In his closing speech, Senior Crown Counsel Robert Welling asked the jury to discount what he termed "red herrings", including the loss of Ms Farkas's crash helmet, the theft of Mr. MacDonald's motorcycle from the side of the street near the collision point, the lack of measurements of the scene and that the investigating officer wasn't a training technical accident investigator.
"How does this help you in your decision?" he asked them.
The prosecutor also suggested that the absence of debris on the road and the light damage sustained by the two vehicles indicated a low-speed impact.
He argued that a defence suggestion that Mr. Hewey was speeding was a "theory and only a theory".
As for Mr. MacDonald's admissions of fault, Mr. Welling noted that he "instinctively knew he was in the wrong."
Tellingly, he urged the jury, Mr. MacDonald twice failed to answer the suggestion that he had failed to look to his left when he was crossing North Street looking for the parking space.
In his rebuttal, Mr. Horseman disputed the prosecution claim of a low-speed collision; instead, he said, there was evidence of a forceful impact with damage inconsistent with slow speed.
Building on that, he put it to the panel that Mr. Hewey's evidence was "confusing, contradictory and even downright unbelievable."
The lawyer then launched into a rehearsal of missing evidence and said: "There isn't sufficient evidence to convict the defendant. Things were not done that should have been done."
The Crown, he said, had not brought forward all the evidence that could have helped Mr. MacDonald's case: "Never mind we lost the bike, never mind we lost the helmet. Is that the way you would expect to be treated?"
As for his client's alleged admissions of fault, Mr. Horseman disclaimed them as such and summed up by saying the "missing evidence, the confusing evidence and the unreliable admissions at the scene" were inadequate to prove the Crown's case.
