News from the South Australian Kapunda Road Royal Commission into Eugene McGee trial. And Ian Humphreys death.
Lets all make damn sure that the Wheels of Justice rides a fortnight back are only the beginning of a longterm movement to change attitudes of all road users and the legal fraternity. If you're concerned, ****** off etc, then it's time make that positive step towards taking action, so that cyclists are not continually treated like second class citizens. It's up to you.
More: Adelaide Wheels of Justice:
http://wheelsofjustice.com.au
Bicycle Justice blog:
http://bicyclejustice.blogspot.com
Wheels of Justice email group:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/wheelsofjustice/
Hit-run lawyer's evidence 'was wrong'
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15348876%255E421,00.html
EVIDENCE that criminal lawyer Eugene McGee gave at his trial for the hit-run death of cyclist Ian Humphrey was wrong, the accident's key witness yesterday told the Kapunda Road Royal Commission.
Anthony Felice also told the commission he believed McGee was driving at up to 130km/h prior to the accident. He rejected McGee's evidence, given at his District Court trial in April, in which the lawyer said he was 25m-30m behind Mr Felice's car and attempting to overtake him when he struck Mr Humphrey. Mr Felice, during cross examination yesterday, told Grant Niemann, counsel assisting the commission, that McGee was between 70m and 100m behind him and was not attempting to overtake him at the time of the accident.
He said that after watching McGee's Pajero hit Mr Humphrey in his rear vision mirror, he pulled over, but McGee had kept going and continued to drive past him. "I tooted my horn at him and I think he sped up then," Mr Felice told Mr Niemann. Mr Felice, who gave evidence before McGee in the District Court trial, did not get the chance to refute McGee's testimony in front of the jury, because he was never asked by the prosecution to do so.
Mr Felice's evidence yesterday to the commission was in stark contrast to evidence given by McGee on April 12 during his trial. "I moved my car to the right . . I can see (another) car was still coming (and) I knew I wouldn't be able to continue and overtake," McGee said in evidence.
"As I was moving back into the left (lane) . . still looking for the oncoming car, there was just a sudden flash to my left. I looked to my left and there was a person. The front of the car was colliding with a person."
Mr Felice yesterday vehemently disputed McGee's claim that he was attempting to pass him, stating at "no stage he was trying to pass me." "If there's a car behind me and it's going to pass me, I know it's going to pass me," he told Mr Neimann. "He was never that close to me and him in a four-wheel drive over my little car he could see straight over the roof. "He'd see anything else coming. he wouldn't have to pull out."
During the District Court trial, Mr Felice was only ever recalled briefly to clarify the distance between his vehicle and that driven by McGee. Asked by Mr Neimann yesterday if he would have been prepared to cooperate with the "police and the prosecution" and come forward again if he had been called upon, Mr Felice replied: "Yes, I would have."
Commissioner Greg James QC then asked Mr Felice if, after he had given evidence the first time, anyone had asked him "whether you could say anything on the issue of whether or not McGee had moved his vehicle out toward the right hand side of the road in a manoeuvre apparently designed to commence or prepare for overtaking your vehicle?"
Mr Felice replied: "No, sir."
Whether Mr Felice was given a proper opportunity in the District Court trial to give evidence about his observations is one of the commission's nine terms of reference.
Mr Felice said yesterday that when he first noticed McGee's Pajero in his rear vision mirror it was gaining on his Mitsubishi Lancer rapidly.
Asked by Mr Niemann if he could estimate if McGee's Pajero was travelling significantly faster than him, Mr Felice replied: "to catch up to me . . he would have had to have been doing well over 120, 130 k's an hour."
He also said at one point McGee had been driving so close to him, he had been able to obtain a description of him.
McGee was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving but convicted of driving without due care and failure to stop and render assistance following an accident. His sentence was a $3100 fine and 12-month driving suspension.
Mr Felice was the first witness actually involved in the McGee case to give evidence to the commission, which is examining aspects of the police investigation and prosecution of Eugene McGee.
Prior to their submissions Mr James again clashed with lawyer Rick Halliday, representing SAPOL, over the provision of documents to the commission.
Mr James asked police to provide even more documents, this time relating to the investigation of road crashes and police procedures.
Lets all make damn sure that the Wheels of Justice rides a fortnight back are only the beginning of a longterm movement to change attitudes of all road users and the legal fraternity. If you're concerned, ****** off etc, then it's time make that positive step towards taking action, so that cyclists are not continually treated like second class citizens. It's up to you.
More: Adelaide Wheels of Justice:
http://wheelsofjustice.com.au
Bicycle Justice blog:
http://bicyclejustice.blogspot.com
Wheels of Justice email group:
http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/wheelsofjustice/
Hit-run lawyer's evidence 'was wrong'
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,15348876%255E421,00.html
EVIDENCE that criminal lawyer Eugene McGee gave at his trial for the hit-run death of cyclist Ian Humphrey was wrong, the accident's key witness yesterday told the Kapunda Road Royal Commission.
Anthony Felice also told the commission he believed McGee was driving at up to 130km/h prior to the accident. He rejected McGee's evidence, given at his District Court trial in April, in which the lawyer said he was 25m-30m behind Mr Felice's car and attempting to overtake him when he struck Mr Humphrey. Mr Felice, during cross examination yesterday, told Grant Niemann, counsel assisting the commission, that McGee was between 70m and 100m behind him and was not attempting to overtake him at the time of the accident.
He said that after watching McGee's Pajero hit Mr Humphrey in his rear vision mirror, he pulled over, but McGee had kept going and continued to drive past him. "I tooted my horn at him and I think he sped up then," Mr Felice told Mr Niemann. Mr Felice, who gave evidence before McGee in the District Court trial, did not get the chance to refute McGee's testimony in front of the jury, because he was never asked by the prosecution to do so.
Mr Felice's evidence yesterday to the commission was in stark contrast to evidence given by McGee on April 12 during his trial. "I moved my car to the right . . I can see (another) car was still coming (and) I knew I wouldn't be able to continue and overtake," McGee said in evidence.
"As I was moving back into the left (lane) . . still looking for the oncoming car, there was just a sudden flash to my left. I looked to my left and there was a person. The front of the car was colliding with a person."
Mr Felice yesterday vehemently disputed McGee's claim that he was attempting to pass him, stating at "no stage he was trying to pass me." "If there's a car behind me and it's going to pass me, I know it's going to pass me," he told Mr Neimann. "He was never that close to me and him in a four-wheel drive over my little car he could see straight over the roof. "He'd see anything else coming. he wouldn't have to pull out."
During the District Court trial, Mr Felice was only ever recalled briefly to clarify the distance between his vehicle and that driven by McGee. Asked by Mr Neimann yesterday if he would have been prepared to cooperate with the "police and the prosecution" and come forward again if he had been called upon, Mr Felice replied: "Yes, I would have."
Commissioner Greg James QC then asked Mr Felice if, after he had given evidence the first time, anyone had asked him "whether you could say anything on the issue of whether or not McGee had moved his vehicle out toward the right hand side of the road in a manoeuvre apparently designed to commence or prepare for overtaking your vehicle?"
Mr Felice replied: "No, sir."
Whether Mr Felice was given a proper opportunity in the District Court trial to give evidence about his observations is one of the commission's nine terms of reference.
Mr Felice said yesterday that when he first noticed McGee's Pajero in his rear vision mirror it was gaining on his Mitsubishi Lancer rapidly.
Asked by Mr Niemann if he could estimate if McGee's Pajero was travelling significantly faster than him, Mr Felice replied: "to catch up to me . . he would have had to have been doing well over 120, 130 k's an hour."
He also said at one point McGee had been driving so close to him, he had been able to obtain a description of him.
McGee was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving but convicted of driving without due care and failure to stop and render assistance following an accident. His sentence was a $3100 fine and 12-month driving suspension.
Mr Felice was the first witness actually involved in the McGee case to give evidence to the commission, which is examining aspects of the police investigation and prosecution of Eugene McGee.
Prior to their submissions Mr James again clashed with lawyer Rick Halliday, representing SAPOL, over the provision of documents to the commission.
Mr James asked police to provide even more documents, this time relating to the investigation of road crashes and police procedures.
