KB-2024-001402 - [2025] EWHC 2492 (KB)

Insofar as there are disputes between the experts, I prefer the evidence of Mr Cass. Mr Cole does not appear to have applied to civil standard of proof to his evidence. In addition to signing the criminal procedure rules declaration, he more than once refers to not being able to be certain of matters. That is not the civil standard of proof.

He also has provided in his report a statistic about the number of Passat cars in the UK at the time of the accident. It is a one line sentence in his report with no explanation as to its relevance. The overall number of VW Passat’s in the UK is not something that helps me determine (other than it being below that number) the number of Passats which could be the Burned or Collision Passats.

I do not accept Mr Bright’s criticism that his use of the term “variants” in relation to the number of Passats in the UK in the report was misleading as the manufacturer referred to the estate as a variant. Mr Cass used the term variant in his report. Mr Cole did not and so his use of the word variant in its common meaning is not misleading.

I find that the VW badge found by Mr Fouto at the scene was from the Collision Passat. I cannot make any finding as to how many VW Passat estates of the relevant model and tone were in the UK, or England, or London at the date of the accident, save that it was less than 247,000.

I accept Mr Cass’s calculation as to the speed of the Collision Passat. I find that the Collision Passat was driven negligently.

I also find that there was no bonnet on the Burned Passat when it was found in Ryan Court and that, although there is no expert evidence, the accident was such that some damage to the bonnet was likely to have occurred.

Having viewed the body worn footage of the arrest during the trial and again following hearing the evidence, I find the following were the relevant exchanges:

I find on the balance of probability that Mr Bair did not identify himself as Romaine initially. Whatever Mr Bair did say initially was not clear – he had after all just been woken abruptly and so it would not be surprising that he was not speaking entirely clearly. Mr Bair is not said to have used the alias Romaine on any other occasion. There would be no need for Mr Bair to have replied “Conrad” in his second comment to PC Morris if in fact he was giving the name Romaine. For all for those reasons, although I could not hear what was said, on the balance probabilities it was not Romaine, and more likely to be Conrad.

I also find that PC Morris genuinely thought that Mr Bair had said Romaine. PC Morris is certain of what he heard, he did not suggest for example it might have been “Roman” and he misheard. I reject the suggestion that this was an attempt to “gild the lily” as suggested in Mr Vincent’s written closing.

I find that paragraph 17 of Mr Bair’s witness statement is intending to say that throughout June of 2021 he was looking after his young children so he could not have been involved in the accident in the early hours of the morning. His justifications of that paragraph are incredible. I do not accept that this is a paragraph which implies that he thinks he might have been at home on one of the occasions he was looking after one of his young children overnight. It is clearly a statement intended to show why he could not have been the driver of the Collision Passat.

I will not make any findings about the Bolt journeys only mentioned in DC Dean’s third witness statement. In my judgment, given the timing of the evidence, I can only give very little weight to those other journeys. None of the parties have been able to properly consider them and I heard no evidence about them from Mr Bair.

I accept that the timings and distances between the various locations; accident, Ryan Court, Oma Autos and the Esso Garage and Brownhill Road given in the particulars of claim and evidence are broadly correct.