Death crash trial halted by new evidence

Linda Bennett Linda Bennett

THE trial of a man accused of killing a 53-year-old woman in a car crash collapsed yesterday after new evidence suggested it was a tragic accident.

Pedro Cardoso was charged with causing the death of Linda Bennett by careless driving on the B4022 Witney Road, near Finstock, where Mrs Bennett lived with her family, in November last year.

But, as his trial was due to start at Oxford Crown Court yesterday, a police reconstruction shed new light on the crash – which Mr Cardoso cannot remember – and the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence.

Investigating officer Sgt Jack Hawkins said the layout of the bend could have given the illusion Mrs Bennett’s headlights were on the wrong side of the road, causing Mr Cardoso to take evasive action.

Speaking outside court, he said: “The road bears round to the left as you’re driving in the direction of Mr Cardoso and the road falls into a dip slightly.

“And if, when you drive along that road you come to that point, for all intents and purposes, headlights could be directly in front of you.”

Sgt Hawkins said the design of the road may be reassessed, but no other crashes had occurred at the scene.

Judge Tom Corrie said: “It was an entirely proper decision which has the court’s approval, and it’s no reflection on the CPS that new evidence emerged at a late stage. There is no criticism of anybody involved.”

Related links

Comments (2)

7:51pm Wed 6 Oct 10

oxfordborn says...

Why was this 'new evidence'? Are the CPS not reading the files. The road will have been closed for hours as the traffic police investigated the scene. Not a lot of point if their conclusions were ignored. A waste of everyone's time not to mention the unnecessary stress on parties concerned.
Why was this 'new evidence'? Are the CPS not reading the files. The road will have been closed for hours as the traffic police investigated the scene. Not a lot of point if their conclusions were ignored. A waste of everyone's time not to mention the unnecessary stress on parties concerned. oxfordborn

6:53am Thu 7 Oct 10

slimjim says...

“It was an entirely proper decision which has the court’s approval, and it’s no reflection on the CPS that new evidence emerged at a late stage. There is no criticism of anybody involved.”

Of course there isn't the CPS is not only a goverment body but also a protected species
“It was an entirely proper decision which has the court’s approval, and it’s no reflection on the CPS that new evidence emerged at a late stage. There is no criticism of anybody involved.” Of course there isn't the CPS is not only a goverment body but also a protected species slimjim

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree