by Abi Silver
‘Well, if we look at the film, we can just see that the car behind you is stationary at the light.’
Mr Bukowski shrugged.
‘It appears to have stopped, we can only assume because the light is at red.’
‘I don’t know what you want me to say. He’s behind me. I don’t know what was happening behind me.’
‘But you are adamant that the light was green when you went through it?’
‘The light was green, yes.’
‘Thank you, no more questions.’
Judith gathered her thoughts, smiled to herself and took in Mr Bukowski, who clearly desired nothing more now, than to be gone as soon as humanly possible, his earlier enthusiasm having been dampened by Celia’s pointed accusations.
‘Just two more questions,’ she said.
‘What would have happened to you and the other men in your car, if you’d been late to your next job that day?’
‘We might have lost the job, certainly lost some pay.’
‘And where do you live?’
‘I live in Uxbridge.’
‘In Uxbridge. How far is that from the site of the crash?’
‘It’s a forty-five mile round-trip for me.’
‘So you live a long way from the scene, and from any local police station?’
‘Yes.’
‘Thank you. I have no more questions. Your honour, that is the end of the defence case.’
***
‘I’m sorry.’ Constance whispered to Judith, as they each tidied their papers. ‘I didn’t think to ask him about why he didn’t stop or give his name to police.’
‘It’s all right. So it’s not perfect and I can’t conclude by saying the lights definitely failed; I’ll fudge it a bit. And, anyway, just because Mr Bukowski didn’t stop and he didn’t volunteer his story, doesn’t mean he ran a red light. The jury get that. He didn’t want to get involved then, but he was prepared to come forward now. That means something. He disappeared pretty quickly from the court room, though, did you see?’
‘I know,’ Constance giggled. ‘I didn’t think he could move that fast. You didn’t link his evidence to the trolley problem?’
‘No.’
‘Wasn’t that the point though?’ Constance asked.
‘Not if the car was being controlled by James right at the end, it wasn’t,’ Judith said. ‘Better to have the jury think he swerved courageously to avoid an oncoming vehicle with five men inside, than the car did it for him, I think? Hardly the actions of a reckless driver.’
***
Martine approached Judith and Constance only once she had seen James disappear downstairs.
‘I thought you did a very good job, thank you,’ she said.
‘Let’s hope it was enough,’ Judith said.
‘Yes. I’m going outside for half an hour. It’s stifling in here. Call me if anything else is going to happen, will you please?’
‘Don’t you want to see James?’
A frown passed across Martine’s forehead.
‘Maybe later,’ she said. ‘I know James will have a lot to say about that last witness. I want him to be able to speak to you, openly and freely. I won’t be long. My head is pounding.’
Constance rested her hand gently on Judith’s shoulder.
‘Calm now,’ she said.
‘So I’m not the only one to find that woman infuriating. “My head is pounding”. She never replies to any of your requests for help and then she doesn’t want to be with her husband, when he’s probably desperate for her company, or at least someone to distract him from what’s coming next.’
‘She’s been here every day for him. She might also have helped with the expert report. And maybe for once, she is being sensible. James always has one eye on Martine when she’s around.’
‘Perhaps I am being too harsh on her. It can’t be easy for her either, her husband being branded a “child killer”. Did you ever find out anything more about her background?’
‘She did hold a couple of beauty-queen titles, like she said, regional titles. And she had a company registered in her name, when she met James, as well as the modelling. It doesn’t exist any more, so I didn’t bother checking up on it.’
‘Hm. And you say she’s a co-director of SEDA?’
‘With Toby and the company lawyer who recommended me. She owns shares too.’
‘Fairly standard for a spouse, I suppose,’ Judith said. ‘Having been so disparaging, I think I will take five minutes’ walk around the block, myself, too, just to clear my head. See you shortly.’
70
CELIA BEGAN her closing speech half an hour later. While Judith could not imagine Celia feeling remotely confident, given the way the evidence had emerged, she knew better than to underestimate such an accomplished adversary.
‘James Salisbury has had a difficult time these last three months,’ Celia began. ‘No one can deny that. He has been injured in a car accident. His doctors say he is suffering still from the trauma associated with the accident and from some loss of memory. He is also potentially facing serious questions regarding the cars he put on the roads. That he gave his evidence articulately in court is admirable. And there may be some members of the jury who have sympathy with him. I have only one response to that: don’t.
‘Therese Layton was generous in her evidence. Despite coming face to face with the killer of her children, she refused to totally condemn the defendant, but she did testify that she saw him with a mobile phone, raised up in his hand, shortly before the crash. The defence does not deny that Mr Salisbury had his phone with him in the car at the time. If he was looking at his phone, then he could not have been concentrating sufficiently on the road.
‘Mr Abrams, our crash specialist, gave crystal clear evidence. The car data establishes beyond doubt that the defendant was invited to take control of the vehicle 150 metres before the collision and was in control at seventy metres; that’s more than three times the length of this court room. Whatever happened before that point is immaterial. From then on, James Salisbury must be judged as any competent driver. He failed to slow down when he passed the roadworks sign, failed to slow at the traffic light, failed to move over into the other carriageway until very late and then swerved back into the closed lane. All this is clear from the recovered data and the cameras on the bodywork of the car and the CCTV. The camera never lies, as they say.
‘On top of that, he admitted to knowingly driving a car reinforced with extra steel rods, which had the effect of adding five miles per hour to his driving speed, compounding the severity of the injuries to his victims. He accepted he never adjusted his driving speed, despite this knowledge.
‘Why did he fail to slow down in time or heed the clear signs? We will never know for certain and perhaps, if we believe that the defendant has indeed suffered extensive amnesia, he will never know either. But when we can’t be certain, in a court room, we have to offer up the most likely reasons, guided by experience, common sense and the facts which are clear and incontrovertible.
‘The defence has tried to confuse this case with hours of diversionary material, statistics for reaction times and stopping distances, school room ethics problems and late, unconvincing witnesses. Don’t be side-tracked. James Salisbury lost control of his car, in circumstances where it was clearly marked that there were impending hazards. He had ample time to respond to the road signs, but he failed to do so, because he was too bothered checking his social diary. As a result, Georgia and Bertie Layton lost their lives and Therese Layton will never be free from pain. There is only one possible verdict in this case; guilty of causing death and guilty of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.’
***
Judith glanced at James before she spoke. While she had been delighted with his charismatic performance earlier, she had told him in no uncertain te
rms, that now things had to be different.
‘Humble is what I need from you now, James. Do you understand?’
‘Yes.’
‘I know you’re a proud man, and rightly so, but you are being judged by those twelve jury members and they will have the images of those children pasted across their souls. Any hint of arrogance, conceit, ego, even of your “man of vision” persona, and you may lose them.’
James nodded.
‘Thank you, Judith. I will definitely do as I am told this time.’
Judith had hesitated before leaving him, reflecting on whether to say anything more, to ask if he was satisfied that what had unfolded gave him reassurance that he was not to blame. It was an unusual situation to be in, where not only did you have to convince the jury of a man’s innocence, you had to convince the man himself too.
***
‘James Salisbury, Therese Layton, her husband Neil, Georgia and Bertie Layton. They all have something in common,’ Judith began. ‘They are all victims. Victims of a car accident, yes. But victims also of circumstance. When things go wrong, we naturally want someone to blame. It has to be someone’s fault. We try cases in this court to reach a decision; guilty or not guilty, that is the question.’
‘So what were the circumstances which led to this accident? Well, you have heard at least part of the story, and it’s a complicated tale with many interwoven facts. A new vehicle, not yet cleared for general release on the streets of our city. Mr Salisbury, whose company, SEDA, designed and built it, incorporating components from many other companies, himself confirming that he prefers to drive in autonomous mode. He has no faith in these hybrid vehicles which can also operate like conventional cars. But he has been compelled by the government, albeit for admirable reasons (taking innovation one step at a time) to produce and trial this “mongrel” car.
‘The government has also compelled him to add features to his vehicles, with an eye on passenger safety, and he complied. The natural consequence of this is that pedestrians may be more at risk, but the government has not yet reached a decision about making any consequential changes to the rules of the road. You cannot possibly penalise Mr Salisbury for following instructions he was given by a government body, with a view to saving lives. And, as my learned friend helpfully pointed out herself, there are a wide range of vehicles travelling on our roads, from bicycles to articulated lorries. They all abide by the same speed limits, whatever their weight or composition.
‘Was Mr Salisbury even driving the car when it crashed? Mr Abrams, the prosecution’s expert, says he was, but he has no hard proof. He can only say that Mr Salisbury’s foot hit the brake and his hands applied pressure to the steering wheel shortly before the crash, and the car appeared to respond. Ms Mansome, for the prosecution, concedes that, if Mr Salisbury was not in control at the moment of impact, then he must be acquitted and that is our primary line of defence, which his honour will explain to you further in his summing up.
‘If, members of the jury, on the contrary, you have no doubt that Mr Salisbury had tried to take control of the vehicle before the crash, then you need to consider if he was really in control. Mr Abrams, the expert, confirmed how short a time frame James had; nine seconds to impact at most from the earliest prompt, four and a half seconds, the blink of an eye, in reality, to conclude a series of complicated manoeuvres. The statistics say most of us would have failed to take control within such a short time frame.
‘But we have also heard that the data the prosecution relies upon for most of its conclusions may not be genuine. It was extracted by SEDA’s own representative, unsupervised and handed to Mr Abrams. Clearly, while I have stopped short of accusing anyone of improper conduct, this should not have happened, and reliance on this evidence alone should be treated with utmost caution.
‘Why did Mr Salisbury’s car not slow down as it approached the Layton family? Mr Abrams confirmed that a crucial sensor in the driver’s side bumper was crushed and that he could not say with certainty that it had been fully intact before the crash. And both he and Mr Herrera, chief technician at SEDA, have confirmed that there is no precise way of establishing this. Mr Herrera’s best educated guess is that the car failed to recognise the temporary traffic light sign. What we know, therefore, is that something failed on the car, leaving Mr Salisbury to do what he could in an impossibly short time frame.
‘You may well have formed the view that Mr Salisbury’s conduct was blameless, right up to the moment when the car swerved back onto the northbound carriageway. That might be the only time when you judge his behaviour to have been potentially at fault. But what did we hear from Mr Bukowski? A potentially malfunctioning traffic light put Mr Salisbury’s car on a collision course with another vehicle. We saw with our own eyes, from the CCTV footage, Mr Bukowski’s car heading straight for Mr Salisbury.
‘Mr Salisbury had a stark choice to make and only fractions of a second in which to make it. Either stay where he was and collide with a car carrying five working men, or take evasive action which might avoid an accident, but would return him to the closed northbound carriageway. He could not have anticipated that the Layton family would choose that very moment to rush out into the road. These are not the actions of someone driving dangerously; much more a cautious driver, trying to make the best of an impossible Catch-22, a real-life application of the trolley problem Mr Salisbury explained to us earlier.
‘The prosecution’s case has been torn to shreds. The defence case has been verified and reinforced. There is only one possible verdict, members of the jury, and that is not guilty.’
Judith sat quietly during the judge’s summing up to the jury. She usually hung on every word, eager to ensure there was no misdirection, either to correct on the spot or leave for an appeal. But today she had no appetite for any of it.
After a few minutes, she dared to steal a glance at James who was surprisingly composed, leaning back in his seat, listening serenely to the tail end of the proceedings, which would determine his fate. His expression was not quite “humble” but it would certainly do for now.
71
THE COURT WAS packed for the verdict which came first thing next morning. Martine and Toby sat in the front row and Neil and Therese Layton three rows behind. Peter was not there.
When the foreman rose to his feet, Judith noticed a number of jury members looking at James, rather than out into the public gallery. She hoped it was a good sign, but she couldn’t be certain.
James was sitting with his eyes closed and his lips were moving slowly. It was impossible to tell whether he was praying or trying to reassure himself with some distraction technique, but he certainly wanted the moment to be over as quickly as possible.
‘Oh God,’ Constance whispered to Judith. ‘I hate this bit.’
Judith was silent. She had spent much of the night thinking up potential grounds of appeal, if James were convicted. The newspapers would help. They had already filled many pages with all the arguments she had raised during the trial and more still analysing James’ discourse on what choices the public faced. She had also thought, more than she had wanted, about the Layton children and their broken bodies lying on the road. The foreman stood up.
‘On the count of causing death by dangerous driving, how do you find the defendant?’
‘Not guilty.’
Constance dug her fingernails hard into the palms of each hand. James flinched but kept his eyes closed.
‘And on the charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving.’
‘Not guilty.’
James’ eyes snapped open and searched out Martine, who blew him a kiss before hugging Toby close to her. James remained in his seat, taking deep breaths, his attention now directed, once more, at the floor. Celia muttered something inaudible to herself and closed her notebook. Judge Wilson dismissed the jury and told James he was free to go.
‘Well done,
’ Constance tapped Judith lightly on the shoulder.
‘Thank you. And to you. You go to James,’ Judith added. ‘See if he wants to make a statement, although, if he does, keep it very short and very bland. You know the kind of thing – no sword of truth, nothing like that.’
‘Sword of truth?’
‘Oh, don’t worry. Before your time. On reflection, I would advise no statement. If James disagrees, muzzle him. I’ll join you in a moment.’
‘Well done Judith,’ Celia formally conceded defeat. ‘Given your client’s selective memory, you did very well indeed.’
‘That’s very gracious of you, Celia,’ Judith said. ‘But you’ve paved the way for some further investigation of what really happened, what decisions were made in the background in high places – if the police has any stomach for it.’
‘Yes, I have, haven’t I?’
‘Celia…’ Judith chewed her lip, uncharacteristically. ‘If I did say anything to you, when we were girls, which was unfair or which hurt you, I am sorry,’ she said.
‘What?’ Celia straightened up and tucked her books under her arm. Her clerk, a young man who could not have been more than sixteen years old, had just arrived, and she pointed at various boxes and files for him to remove.
‘I’m trying to apologise if I ever said anything hurtful when we were younger,’ Judith forced the words out, with some difficulty.
‘I don’t know what you’re talking about,’ Celia said. ‘Oh that stuff from the first day? I was just trying to put you off your stride. Nearly worked, didn’t it?’
***
Neil and Therese remained seated in the courtroom as the rest of the public filed out. Neil was weeping openly, Therese sat staring at her hands. Celia noticed them, contemplated approaching them and then thought better of it. They were not her clients and there was little she could say to them. Instead, she directed her clerk to wheel away her boxes, and decided she would consider next steps after a stiff drink.
In the end, they were the only two people remaining in the empty room, which somehow appeared so much smaller now everyone had gone. It was impossible to believe that so many people had been thrown together in this airless, sterile space. All that remained were a few discarded papers littering the lawyers’ benches, the microphones knocked awry, the judge’s chair askew.
