EWJ August 62 2025 web - Journal - Page 38
Together, these findings demonstrated that the
collision was consistent with an unintended outcome
arising from excessive speed and human error, rather
than a calculated or deliberate act. The forensic evidence offered the jury an alternative and scientifically
grounded explanation, which helped shift the focus
from speculation to facts.
Above image: Using the bus stop as a fixed point to measure
the speed of the travelling vehicles.
Ultimately, the jury acquitted the driver of murder.
This case serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of expert input in complex legal proceedings,
where technical evidence can make the difference
between conviction and acquittal.
• Brake light illumination indicated the driver was
attempting to stop.
A key moment captured on the footage was the
illumination of the car’s brake lights prior to the collision. This detail provided strong evidence that the
driver was taking action to avoid the crash, rather than
acting with any intent to cause harm.
Conclusion: Work with Forensic Access
At Forensic Access, we provide expert analysis and
support in collision investigation, as well as in a wide
range of forensic disciplines. Our experienced specialists deliver impartial, evidence-based insight to assist courts, legal teams, and investigators in uncovering
the truth.
If you need assistance with road traffic collision analysis, or any other forensic expertise, our team is here
to help.
The illumination of brake lights was a measurable
event that directly challenged the prosecution’s case,
undermining any suggestion of deliberate intent.
Contact our Casework Management Team
via email at science@forensic-access.co.uk
or by phone on 01235 774870.
• Perception-response time research supported the
defence case.
The investigation also examined the driver's likely
thought process by incorporating research based on
perception and response times and applying it to the
circumstances of the case. These established scientific
models determined that the driver would have started
to perceive and respond to the hazard approximately
80 metres before the impact.
This behaviour was consistent with a reasonable
human response to a sudden hazard and provided
further support to the conclusion that the collision was
not deliberate but instead the tragic outcome of a fastdeveloping situation.
Below image: This illustrates the reaction and breaking points,
key for challenging the assumption of ‘intent.’
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
36
AUGUST/SEPT 2025
