Defence of woman involved in double-fatal A165 crash claims it was a ‘chance event’ and ‘just a tragic accident’
The prosecution in the trial of a “young girl” accused of causing the deaths of two people by careless driving has continued its case against her because it did not have the “humility” to admit that it had “got it wrong”, the defence has claimed. Mercedes driver Laila Barnard-Wigley now faces only two charges of causing death by careless driving after the jury was directed to return verdicts of not guilty in relation to the more serious charges of causing the deaths of the two people by dangerous driving and causing serious injury to a boy by dangerous driving. But the defence barrister claims that the prosecution has decided to “pass the buck” and the “burden” to the jury so that it would “do their dirty work for them”.
This was despite a prosecution expert changing his mind very late about the possibility that the woman’s car had aquaplaned before the fatal crash, Hull Crown Court[1] heard. Barnard-Wigley, 25, of Thoresby Avenue, Bridlington, originally denied causing the deaths of Dean Yarrow and Faye Wardle by dangerous driving on May 7, 2021 and causing serious injury to the boy by dangerous driving. The jury had been told that there was now insufficient evidence to convict her of the two charges of causing the deaths of the couple by dangerous driving as well as a third charge involving causing serious injury to the boy.
Barnard-Wigley’s car had veered across the road, apparently because of aquaplaning, and crashed into a car that was heading in the opposite direction. She is said to have been “in a hurry” to get to a Bridlington beauty salon to try to sell some makeup to the owner. She made five or six attempts to overtake another car a few minutes earlier before finally doing so.
It was claimed she was running late to get to the salon for her promised time of 3.30pm. The accident happened just before 3.30pm as Barnard-Wigley drove a black Mercedes Benz car southbound from the Scarborough direction on the A165 at Scarborough Road, Bridlington, north of the junction of Grindale Road crossroads. She was in collision with a red Peugeot 208 car being driven northbound by Mr Yarrow, 33, whose girlfriend, Miss Wardle, 32, was in the front passenger seat.
Their car ended up in a field off the open road and they died at the scene from their injuries. A young boy was in the rear of the car and he suffered serious injuries that needed a plaster cast for a time. Barnard-Wigley lost control of her car and it drifted over into the line of traffic coming the other way.
There was a “head-on collision” and the prosecution claims that Barnard-Wigley was driving at a speed that was not appropriate for the weather conditions. Barnard-Wigley had, earlier that day, exchanged messages with a female friend who worked at a Bridlington beauty salon. Mention was made in the messages – sent at about 12pm – of Estee Lauder, make-up, foundations and perfumes.
Barnard-Wigley was offering to sell beauty product items to another woman who, at the time, was the owner of the salon. She had no previous convictions and no endorsements on her driving licence. Defence barrister Richard Dawson said of the accident: “There but for the grace of God go I.
There but for the grace of God go us all.” He told the jury in his closing speech that it was a “terrible and tragic accident” and the “human tragedy must never be forgotten”. But Mr Dawson said that it was only right that we all recognised that all vehicles were “potentially lethal instruments” when they were on the road. “It’s also right that we recognise and acknowledge that sometimes accidents happen,” said Mr Dawson.
An accident in the true sense was where no one was necessarily to blame – but he claimed that this was often forgotten and people were often led into believing that when an accident happened, someone must be to blame. “Accidents do happen,” said Mr Dawson. “Accidents in the true sense. Accidents where no one is necessarily at fault.
“There is no doubt that this is a tragic case, a case that has had tragic consequences. Ultimately, it concerns a loss of human life and emotions inevitably run high when considering a case like this. “The consequences of Laila’s driving were terrible.
Dean Yarrow and Faye Wardle sadly lost their lives.” Tragic consequences, even when life was lost, did not demonstrate the standard of a person’s driving and they did not indicate that the standard fell below that of a careful and competent driver, he said.
Join our WhatsApp Community for the latest crime news
Get all the latest crime and court news in Hull straight to your mobile via WhatsApp by clicking here[2]. If you don’t like our community, you can leave any time. We also treat members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners.
Read our privacy notice here[3]. The focus needed to be on “actions” as these alone demonstrated the standard of driving. The prosecution expert had eventually agreed that it was a case of aquaplaning by Barnard-Wigley’s car.
This would have been accidental – an “unforeseen and generally unforeseeable” event. “It’s really akin to hitting a patch of ice,” said Mr Dawson. If a driver hit a patch of ice and lost control, it was an accident. Someone would not expect to be prosecuted even if the outcome of a crash caused by ice resulted in catastrophic consequences.
“Aquaplaning is no different,” said Mr Dawson. A driver should not be held responsible if control was taken away. The prosecution continued to prosecute the case of Barnard-Wigley despite the “fundamental” change of opinion by the prosecution expert about likely aquaplaning.
Having revealed no apparent fault in Barnard-Wigley’s driving, the prosecution “continued to prosecute this young girl” in the case, Mr Dawson claimed. He told the court: “They continue to prosecute her because they don’t have the humility to accept that they have got it wrong. Instead, they pass the buck.
They pass the burden to you and put it on your toes and make you do their dirty work for them.” Mr Dawson claimed that, despite the prosecution expert conceding that aquaplaning took place, he had still tried to persuade the jury that “Laila is criminally responsible for that event”. Mr Dawson claimed that Barnard-Wigley’s five or six attempts to overtake a car in front of her demonstrated the care and attention that she was giving to her driving.
“Although she was wanting to pass, plainly she wasn’t prepared to overtake unless she considered it was safe to do so,” said Mr Dawson. “Each time she aborted those attempts, it must have been because she had identified a potential hazard. She must have concluded that it was unsafe to complete the manoeuvre, otherwise she would have just gone ahead and completed the manoeuvre.”
There must have been “constant scanning and hazard perception” by her and it would be subconscious. “You just do it and that’s how you get down the road without collision,” said Mr Dawson. “It’s what the aborted manoeuvres appear to demonstrate that Laila was doing. Laila was probably less than 10 minutes away from the salon anyway.”
The prosecution claimed that she was in a hurry because she was “desperately trying to sell some makeup” but a video that had been taken from another vehicle showing her driving did not seem to show this. Aquaplaning was a “chance event” and “it’s a matter of chance”. Hindsight was “a wonderful thing” but it was not a basis to find criminal liability or a basis to start a criminal prosecution.
“Where is the evidence that Laila wasn’t driving cautiously?” said Mr Dawson. “What evidence have the prosecution presented that she was doing anything differently than any other driver in that situation? “Where is the evidence that she hasn’t moderated her speed? Should she have seen that film of water?
No one saw the film of water. Put yourself in Laila’s shoes for a minute. Would you really have done anything different?
“Even if she did see it, why should she or any competent driver have identified it as a hazard to be avoided? There was nothing Laila could have done to avoid this chance and unforeseeable event. “This is no more a case of careless driving than it was a case of dangerous driving.
It was an accident – a tragic accident but an accident nonetheless.” Decisions were made in fractions of seconds. Sometimes, wrong decisions were made or decisions were deemed to be wrong with the benefit of hindsight, he claimed.
“Please put yourself in her shoes,” said Mr Dawson. Sometimes fatal accidents happened but criminal culpability did not occur. “This was a tragic accident with catastrophic consequences but it was just that – an accident where no one need be held criminally responsible,” said Mr Dawson.
“Even the prosecution concede that she otherwise drove safely and competently. She is a cautious, careful and competent driver. “There are other factors that properly explain why this tragic accident occurred other than she drove carelessly.”
Barnard-Wigley did not give evidence to the jury. “That was her absolute right,” said Mr Dawson. “It’s not for her to prove her innocence.” She did not try to invent new memories of the incident to fit the changed prosecution case. “She has no real recollection of events,” said Mr Dawson. It was a “fundamentally weak prosecution case”.
The jury is out and continues to consider its verdicts.