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

Mr Bair provided a witness statement to the Second Defendant’s representatives in June 2024 whilst he was in prison on remand for various unrelated offences. He says he was not involved in the accident, did not have any involvement with the ownership or control of the vehicle and did not agree to being a named driver on the insurance. He says he had nothing to do with setting fire to the vehicle.

He states that the time of the accident in June 2021, he did not believe he even owned a car as he had been banned from driving under the “totting up scheme” as he had accumulated over 12 points on his licence. He said he had never driven a vehicle whilst disqualified.

He notes the accident happened in the early hours of the morning on Sunday 20^th June 2021. He goes on to say (paragraph 17):

“In June 2021, I was living in an apartment in Crown Point, Upper Norwood, London, SE19 whilst looking after my young children so I would not have ventured out in the early hours of the morning as I would have been in bed asleep.”

He explains he is just over 6’6” tall and that people describe him as a basketball player because of his height and build.

He also says that given the charges against him for which he was on remand, the accident is the last of his worries and if he had anything to do with it he would say so.

He comments that when he was arrested he had wanted to admit to possession of the 1oz of cocaine for his own possession that was seized when he was arrested, but he went no comment on the advice of his solicitor. I note he in fact pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis, another class B drug, and heroin.

He does not mention the Father’s day cards, DVLA letter or insurance in his name in the witness statement.

In respect of his police interview, it was largely a no comment interview. When it comes to the accident, he asks why he is being questioned in respect of it, then reverts to no comment until he was asked if he was the driver when he replied “no, no, no”. When he was asked why he didn’t stop at the scheme he says “I’m not involved in any collisions”. He is then asked, if he wasn’t involved, whether he had any idea where he might have been. He replied, “er. No, I don’t, can I speak to my solicitor, because I don’t know to continue, yeah, can I do that?”. Having spoken to his solicitor he continues to say no comment, but wasn’t asked again where he was on the night of the accident.

The interview moved on to the arson. He was asked where he was at half past three in the morning on 23 June 2021 and replied “probably sleeping” and “just in my bed curled up”. When asked whether he was with anyone and where he was he said no comment.

When the phone call reporting the theft of the Burned Passat was put to him stating that a male that identified himself as Roman Bair made the call, Mr Bair blew a raspberry. When it was put to him (incorrectly) that the call was made from a number ending 056 that has been attributed to him through police checks he said, “never. You’d never, not (blows raspberry) just no way. No way”. He confirmed the phone number was not his. When asked what his number was, he said he can’t remember it although usually he knows it off by heart. He was asked what type of phone he had and gave its details. He was asked if that was the only phone he had and he said, “uh hm”.

The call reporting the car stolen was played to him and he denied it was him who made the call or that he recognised the voice, “no. A hundred percent no. Or a million percent. That’s nothing to do with me”.

When asked if he knew a Roman Bair, he replied no comment. When asked “who is Roman Bair?” he replied, “I’ve got no, its. I don’t know”. When asked about the Father’s day cards and if Roman Bair is his son he replied no comment.

The recording of the arrest was played and it was put to him he replied his name was Roman. The part of the recording where PC Morris says “Romaine” is played and he says “I never use other people’s names it doesn’t make sense. I would use my own name. I would use my own name. I don’t even know who’s (blows raspberry) anyway.”

He answers no comment to almost all the further questions about phones and drugs found at the flat on his arrest. When an exhibit is put to him which the police believed to be a class A drug he said he hadn’t seen it before and when asked if when it was sent off for fingerprints and DNA, would his fingerprint and DNA be on there he replied “one million percent no”. As I have already mentioned, he later pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and heroin.

In his oral evidence, Mr Bair explained that his witness statement was prepared about 3 years after the accident and at the time he did not have access to his criminal record or driving history. He confirmed its contents were true.

He was asked how old his son was in 2021. He said he is now 5 and was 2 in June 2021 but he didn’t wish to give his date of birth. He said he would give any answers in court but not about his children. He was asked if Roman was able to write the two Father’s day cards. Mr Bair answered that he didn’t know, he was not there when they were written so didn’t know if he wrote them with or without help.

He denied having given the name Romaine on arrest. He said he would give PC Morris “the benefit of the doubt” and that “he’s mistaken. Very very. It’s a very serious detrimental mistake. Very dangerous mistake”.

He was unable to explain why there was a DVLA letter to Roman Bair at his home address. He said that he rented a room in a house of multiple occupation and that, at the time, there were lots of people there. The kitchen, living room and bathroom were communal. He said no one called Roman used that address and that his son did not live at that address. He also said no one else called Bair was at that address.

It was suggested to him that paragraph 17 of his witness statement was a lie. He asked “what is a lie?” It was put to him that in June 2021 young children were not living with him. He agreed they were not, and denied saying they lived with him. He said that Roman was not living there, Roman is one of “plural children”. He would not confirm how many children he had. He cannot remember whether he had children with him at the flat at the time of the accident. He took “sole ownership” of them regularly and would look after them at his mum’s house, his cousins’ or Crown Point. He said it was so long ago he could not say which child or children he had in his possession at the time. He said he did sometimes look after them at Crown Point and sometimes they would sleep in the same bedroom. He disagreed that paragraph 17 was trying to imply he was looking after children throughout June 2021 at Crown Point. He said that his young children stayed at Crown Point irregularly, and Roman stayed there irregularly. When asked if the implication that he was at the address on the night of the 20June 2021, looking after children, was untrue, he said it was highly likely he was there, with or without kids. He said he was not 100% sure that he was looking after children at Crown Point on 20 June but he thinks he was and if he said it closer to the time then “9/10 times that would be correct”.

He said he could not explain the SORN letter addressed to Roman Bair. He said it was not his SORN letter. The house that was raided was an HMO and he rented a room and that there were lots of people there. He explained in the past he had been a bit of a wheeler dealer, and lots of the people at Crown Point were that type and their associates. The kitchen, living room and bathroom were communal. He confirmed there was no one else living there with the surname Bair. He also said that the BMW in the SORN might be a car associated with another flat he lived in on Greyhound Terrace. I note that is the address on his driving licence that the police seized.

He initially said he did not recall what cars he was driving in 2020 and 2021. When his arrest record was put to him, he agreed that he was driving a silver VW Golf reg no GF09 OAD at that time. He said he purchased in in 2009. He could not recall when he stopped driving it or when he bought it.

He agreed he used the Lloyds bank card to pay for a Bolt ride. He could not recall if he went to Oma Autos but had been to Gleneagle Mews. He may have been in that area and ordered a Bolt on his phone.

In respect of the date of birth on the insurance, he said it was not his insurance. For insurance to be valid all the details need to be correct. If he drove a car with him 20 years too old on the insurance that would be an imbecile move as the insurance would not be valid. When asked if he was saying he had been the victim of identity theft he said “One million percent yes”.

In respect of the handset used to make the call to the police, he said he had many different phones, he buys and sells phones, cars and drugs and he doesn’t know when he lost possession of the handset or who it was using it in the call. He thinks it could have been sold or part exchanged for a bike. He denied that the call was anything to do with him, said he knew nothing about the Burned Passat, keys, topping it up with petrol because he had nothing to do with it. When he was asked why he knew it was a petrol car, he said the ANPR documents looked at said it was a petrol car.

In respect of the police interview, Mr Bair said that he had remote advice from a solicitor who advised him to say no comment but when the police said things that he didn’t do he couldn’t contain himself particularly when hearing statements about a collision which was nothing to do with him. He said he was itching to say the car was nothing to do with him, and he did say it; it is not his type of crime. Drugs maybe were, but running people over is not his thing.

It was put to him that it was a lie when he said he was disqualified for totting in his witness statement. He would not initially accept that his witness statement was incorrect when it said had been banned under the totting scheme until he was shown the documents. He said if it was wrong, he has a crazy lifestyle, he had case issues and family issues, loads of different things going on in 2024 when the statement was taken. He was talking about events in 2021 and he can’t be 100% sure of every nook or cranny of what happened in 2021.

Once he was shown the documents showing he was banned on 23 June 2021, he said in fact he knew the ban was coming and knew he was going to plead guilty and be banned so he got rid of his cars. He says he doesn’t run people over and burn cars. He sells drugs, phones, cars and bikes.

When Mr Bair saw the video of the collision, before he was giving evidence, Mr Bair commented that it was obviously terrible, but asked why the Claimants were in the road? When he was asked why he had said that, he explained he was not trying to justify his own actions, but his personal view is that no one should stand in the middle of the road and cabs shouldn’t stop at the side of the road with hazards. The accident was easily avoidable. He simply made an observation.

Mr Bair was giving evidence over CVP from Prison and in difficult circumstances. On one day, due to various issues, he said he did not get any food or drink. He was, for the most part, polite and although he sometimes became, as Mr Vincent put it in closing submissions, animated and cross, that is not something to be held against him in the circumstances.

However, even taking that into account, I did not find Mr Bair a witness who was seeking to help the court and tell the whole truth. He obfuscated and avoided answering direct questions put to him by counsel and would only do so when I asked him to answer on occasion. When it was suggested to him that what was in his statement was not true, he argued about the terminology of lying rather than answer the question.

His answers to questions about the Father’s day cards were an example of that attitude. He must have known whether his son wrote them alone or with help or whether it was someone else (and that, if his son was two, is probably the correct answer), and his answer that he couldn’t have known because he wasn’t there was glib and unhelpful. His response to the questions about why the insurance was in his name, arguing that he wouldn’t take it out with the wrong birth year because it would be invalid, was another attempt to deflect from dealing head on with the questions being put to him.