Prosecutors have argued compelling evidence proves the "sad and uncomfortable reality" that a drunk driver substantially caused a crash that killed his mate after a night of drinking in Belconnen.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But lawyers for the driver, Jamie Michael Richardson, 24, have reiterated their argument that the steering wheel was ripped from his grasp, leaving him with 0.75 of a second to do something to avoid smashing into a tree head-on.
No-one, they argue, not even a sober driver, could have stopped the car from crashing in that time.
A jury began on Thursday deliberating on whether Richardson was guilty of charges of culpable driving causing death and culpable driving causing grievous bodily harm.
The charges stem from an early-morning crash on February 1, 2014. Richardson and his friends had been out drinking at the Lighthouse pub in Belconnen, and the accused got behind the wheel of his friend's car. He was well over the limit, and recorded a blood alcohol reading of 0.19 in hospital after the crash, almost four times the legal limit.
Richardson clipped a gutter as he drove, with the female owner in the front passenger seat, and two male friends in the back, and was told to pull over.
He continued driving and on William Slim Drive, just before the intersection with Dumas Street, the car veered off the road.
It hit a tree and one of the rear passengers, a 29-year-old man, was killed.
The woman in the front seat also suffered serious injuries, and was rushed to hospital for urgent treatment.
The trial of Richardson, described as "unique" by his lawyers, largely comes down to what happened in the moments before the crash.
Richardson argues that the woman passenger, who had been telling him to pull over, grabbed the steering wheel and wrenched it to the left, causing the car to leave the road.
That left him with less than a second, after reaction times, to do something to avoid hitting the tree.
Crown prosecutor Trent Hickey used his closing address to the jury to argue that Richardson's version was "self-serving", and at-odds with his statements to police following the crash, and to the victim's parents on the day of his funeral.
Mr Hickey argued that, even if the passenger grabbed the wheel, it was because Richardson had veered out of his lane due to his drunkenness.
"The accused is trying to sheet home blame for the collision to [the passenger]," he said.
"Even if [the passenger] did grab the wheel, it was not an intervening act... It was a natural consequence of the accused driving with such a high blood alcohol level."
The Crown has to prove that Richardson's drunk driving significantly or substantially contributed to the crash.
It called a medical expert who estimated Richardson's blood alcohol reading was about 0.225 at the time of the crash, and said he would be incapable of controlling a car at that level.
Defence barrister Jack Pappas used his closing to argue that speculation that Richardson had drifted out of his lane was at odds with the scientific evidence showing the car was travelling in a straight line within the northbound lane before it suddenly changed direction.
Mr Pappas said there was nothing anyone could do to prevent the crash once the steering wheel was pulled.
"It was always going to end in a collision," he said.
"There was nothing anyone could have done, including my client, who was affected by alcohol."
Earlier in the trial, the court heard from the victim's mother, who said Richardson had come to their home on the day of her son's funeral.
She said he told her that he had veered out of the lane and then the passenger had grabbed the wheel.
But Mr Pappas said that the father, who was also present, did not remember that being said, and Richardson has denied it.
Immediately after the crash, Richardson lied to police when they arrived, telling them the driver had run off and he didn't know who it was.
Richardson then told them he was the driver, and that he'd been drinking.
He said:
"Just do it, f---ing shoot me. I've killed him".
Mr Hickey said that comment, and a number of others similar, were "sub-conscious admissions" to causing the crash.
"Before he had the time to make up a story... he was sub-consciously admitting to causing the accident," he said.
Another passenger told the court Richardson had apologised for causing the crash while the pair were in hospital together.
Mr Pappas told the court that Richardson clearly would have felt terrible about what had happened. But he said that did not make his client guilty of the offences he has been charged with.
"He killed a young man who was his friend," he said.
"Why wouldn't you, in layman's terms, say to the police 'just shoot me'?"
Mr Hickey said there was compelling evidence that Richardson's driving was a substantial or significant cause of the crash.
"That is the sad and uncomfortable reality," he said.
The jury was still deliberating on Thursday afternoon, and was sent home to return on Tuesday, following the Easter break.
