A drunk driver whose friend died when his car crashed head-on into a tree has appealed a jury's "mistaken" guilty verdict, saying they were either wrong, speculated, or improperly excluded his innocent explanation for the collision.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Jamie Michael Richardson, 24, launched the appeal two days after a jury found him guilty of causing the fatal crash early on February 1, 2014.
Richardson was drinking with friends at the Lighthouse pub in Belconnen when he decided to get behind the wheel of a friend's car.
He was well over the limit, and his blood-alcohol reading was recorded at 0.19 at a hospital after the crash.
As he drove, Richardson clipped a gutter, but continued driving. He was being told to pull over by at least one of the three passengers, a woman sitting in the front seat.
The car was making its way along William Slim Drive, when, just before the intersection with Dumas Street, it veered off the road.
It crashed head-on into a tree, killing a man in the back seat, and seriously injuring the woman in the front.
Richardson, represented by Ben Aulich & Associates, faced an ACT Supreme Court trial in March for culpable driving causing death and culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm.
He argued the female passenger had wrenched the wheel from his grasp just before the crash, causing the car to leave the road.
The defence's crash expert said that would have left him with less than a second, after reaction times, to do anything to avoid the crash.
His barrister, Jack Pappas, said even a sober driver could not have avoided the crash.
The jury found Richardson guilty of both offences on Wednesday, following lengthy deliberations, during which they told the court they were struggling to come to a unanimous verdict.
On Friday afternoon, Richardson's solicitor, Peter Woodhouse, filed an appeal that seeks to have the convictions quashed.
The appeal documents argue the jury's verdicts were unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence.
It argues there was no evidence that would have allowed the jury to discard the "reasonable and innocent explanation" given by Richardson. Deliberations, the appeal argues, must have, therefore, involved a degree of "impermissible speculation" for the jury to arrive at guilty verdicts.
"The jury must have been, by virtue of their decisions, mistaken or misled," the appeal states.
The prosecution said Richardson's drunkenness did not have to be the sole or direct cause of the crash for the jury to find him guilty.
Crown prosecutor Trent Hickey said his driving only needed to be a significant or substantial cause.
Mr Hickey said there was compelling evidence to prove that to the jury.
He argued Richardson's version about the wheel being wrenched from his grasp was "self-serving", suggesting it was invented to fit with the rest of the evidence.
Mr Hickey argued it was at odds with Richardson's comments to police at the scene, including when he told them: "Just do it, f---ing shoot me. I've killed him."
He told the jury that even if they found the woman had grabbed the wheel, they could find that she did so as a reaction to his driving.
The evidence suggested the car was travelling straight and within the northbound lane when it suddenly veered off the road, suggesting Richardson wasn't drifting into another lane.
The appeal will be heard at a later date.
