Hearing transcripts

7 November 2007 - Afternoon session
20 (2.00 pm)
21 (Jury out)
22 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Burnett, I hand down the
23 ruling and reasons for it in respect of controversial
24 witnesses' evidence.
25 MR BURNETT: Thank you, sir.

82

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: There will be copies available
2 for those who want it and it will be posted on the
3 website right away.
4 MR BURNETT: Thank you.
5 (Jury present)
6 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes, Mr Mansfield.
7 MR MANSFIELD: Now, I think you now have the plan and
8 hopefully the jury have the coloured copy tab 5,
9 number 13 [INQ-PLAN-0006] which is the annotated plan by
10 the passenger. In fact she was in the car with
11 Mr Boura.
12 A. Yes, sir, I do.
13 Q. Just so you can get your bearings, you will see, along
14 the bottom, the annotations that she made of the
15 movements of her car in relation to what she either saw
16 or what she heard.
17 So the first on the left, for example, is where she
18 remembers her car being when she heard the screeching,
19 effectively, and then, moving along, when she first saw
20 the Mercedes and is so on. Do you follow?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. The reason I want you to refresh your memory from this
23 is an observation that you made just before lunch that
24 you would observe and also -- I do not use the word
25 "imagine" in a derogatory way -- but think that

83

1 the blocking dark vehicle or hindering dark vehicle in
2 front of the Mercedes which she recollects seeing would
3 have been involved in some way with the Mercedes itself.
4 Do you follow?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. I just want to remind you of what the driver of that
7 car, that is the car with L'Hostis as a passenger, said.
8 It is a little while ago. It is 24th October, pages 46
9 and 47. He -- this is the driver -- was being taken
10 through it rather carefully in relation to his
11 statements as well.
12 Now, again, you will recall, he was seen, Mr Boura,
13 as was Mlle L'Hostis, on the night by the French police.
14 Do you remember?
15 A. Yes, I do.
16 Q. I am reading from line 15, for those who are following:
17 "I first heard a screech of tyres and right after it
18 a first impact, but that was not violent at all."
19 He is asked to read some of his statement. The next
20 sentence:
21 "Thinking about it afterwards, I took that for
22 an impact between two vehicles, bumper to bumper, not
23 involving metal.
24 "Question: After you heard those sounds, what did
25 you see? Could you describe it in your own words

84

1 please?"
2 He says that the words in his statement are correct:
3 "It is exactly what I saw."
4 And the question then comes that it needs to be said
5 now, in evidence. Then he says this:
6 "Well, a car bumped into another and then bumped
7 into a pillar in the tunnel."
8 Then a question which incorporates the concept of
9 sliding and he says "yes".
10 "Question: Now in your statement you told
11 the magistrate that you had used the word "sliding",
12 "glisser", to mean the movement of a vehicle out of
13 control. Is that correct?
14 "Answer: Yes.
15 "Question: Would that be like a skidding movement?
16 "Answer: No sound of braking, no sound of tyres
17 squeaking, just loss of control, car sliding.
18 "Question: Did it slide in just one direction or
19 did it go in a zigzag?
20 "Answer: It was sliding in one direction, ours
21 [they are on the other side of the tunnel, as I pointed
22 out] and then on to the pillar.
23 "Question: Did you see any vehicle in front of the
24 Mercedes?
25 "Answer: Yes."

85

1 So on that account, just dealing with that account
2 for the moment, he does seem to recollect that there was
3 contact between the Mercedes and the vehicle in front.
4 Do you follow?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. That is precisely what you thought before lunch would
7 have been what might have happened, isn't it?
8 A. I beg your pardon. I thought you were relaying there
9 that he heard the impact between the Fiat and the
10 Mercedes.
11 Q. Who has brought the Fiat into this?
12 A. The vehicle in front.
13 Q. Why do you say that that is a Fiat?
14 A. Because that has been determined to be a Fiat from
15 the debris that was left at --
16 Q. I am sorry, no. Are you making assumptions about what
17 Mr Boura described?
18 A. Indirectly -- I thought, from your reading of his
19 evidence, that it was -- he was describing an impact
20 with a car and then seeing another car in front.
21 Q. No, no, no. Have you examined this evidence carefully?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Well, you see, I am going to suggest to you that this
24 vehicle cannot possibly be the Fiat because what these
25 witnesses see is a dark vehicle -- both of them see

86

1 this -- accelerating away from the scene, not
2 a slow-moving vehicle that has to swerve round the
3 crashed Mercedes and then somehow disappear. Do you
4 follow? It is a completely -- I suggest to you --
5 different vehicle. The slow-moving vehicle is the Fiat,
6 which I have already put to you, a slow-moving vehicle
7 on the right-hand lane. Do you remember I started with
8 that?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. And that would provide an impediment, and you said yes,
11 but not entirely because there is a free lane ahead. Do
12 you remember you saying that?
13 A. Yes, I absolutely agree.
14 Q. So what I then said was, "Ah, but wait a moment, if
15 there is another blocking vehicle or, to use L'Hostis'
16 words, 'hindering' vehicle, then the Mercedes is boxed
17 in", isn't it?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. So don't jump to conclusions, please, that
20 the vehicle is a Fiat that I am talking about here with
21 Boura. In fact, do you remember that this witness was
22 asked about what the vehicle was as he remembered it?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 Q. What did he say?
25 A. I do not remember off the top of my head, but I remember

87

1 the question being asked.
2 Q. The answer is rather important, isn't it, and it is
3 something he said before he ever came here. Now, with
4 your permission, sir, I have asked for -- I cannot say
5 it is the exact one, but what he was saying was that
6 it was bigger than his car, which was a white 205,
7 I think -- a Renault, and he used the "Berlingo" type of
8 vehicle. I have asked for a black and white version --
9 I have showed Mr Burnett this morning a copy of this.
10 Could we have this up? It has been scanned. Not
11 everybody is familiar with Berlingos, least of all me,
12 but do you know that as a Berlingo?
13 A. Yes, I do.
14 Q. No doubt that can be saved. Now that is what he thought
15 he saw driving off, it having had a bump with the car
16 behind, and then the car behind the Mercedes hits the
17 pillar and so on. So it just drives off the scene. Do
18 you follow?
19 A. I understand now. My misunderstanding was which vehicle
20 you were suggesting had the impact.
21 Q. I appreciate that there might be a misunderstanding.
22 I have not quite finished this scene as described by
23 these two witnesses and, in fact, if you need to see
24 it -- I do not ask that you have it -- Boura has also
25 done one of these plans describing pretty much the same

88

1 as to where the vehicle was. That is tab 5, number 12.
2 Do you have that?
3 A. I do have a copy, sir.
4 Q. I am not going through that as well. It is just to give
5 a feel of what these two particular individuals were
6 saying.
7 Now besides the car in front, of course, they both
8 talk about a motorcycle -- I used the word this
9 morning -- "tailgating" or right or immediately behind
10 the Mercedes. You are aware of that?
11 A. Yes, I am.
12 Q. Now, of course, you indicated that various motorcycles
13 had been tested for performance, if I can put it that
14 way.
15 A. Yes, that is correct.
16 Q. Are you aware of the name James Andanson?
17 A. Yes, I am.
18 Q. Are you also aware that he kept a motorcycle in Paris?
19 A. No, I was not.
20 Q. Has anybody ever told you anything about a motorcycle
21 belonging to Andanson?
22 A. No. The only collection I have known with Andanson and
23 a vehicle is a white Fiat.
24 Q. A white Fiat. So the prospect of a red BMW 650CC is not
25 something that you have been asked to consider?

89

1 A. No, I have not been asked to consider. I was unaware.
2 Q. You were unaware. Right.
3 Now on your evidence, and that is of the tests that
4 have been done on motorcycles, nearly all -- well, all
5 of them save one -- could readily keep up with the
6 Mercedes on this stretch at the speeds that you have
7 indicated.
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. And the one that could not would be very close behind?
10 A. Indeed.
11 Q. So it is clear, the one that could not keep up entirely
12 but would be close behind was the Darmon/Rat.
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. I think you have accepted from the videos that we saw
15 just before lunch that this stretch of road from the
16 corner of Place de la Concorde through to the
17 Alma Tunnel not only is free-flowing, but it is
18 really -- between the Ritz, the back of the Ritz, and
19 the Alma, it is the only stretch of road in which it
20 would be possible to provoke a vehicle into faster
21 speeds by pursuing it?
22 A. Yes, it would.
23 Q. And if, of course -- and I take first of all what Boura
24 and L'Hostis saw -- if a dark vehicle in front similar
25 to a Berlingo and the motorcycle behind did not belong

90

1 to paparazzi, but others who were intentionally, as it
2 were, in pursuit and blocking, then beginning to
3 engineer a loss of control is perfectly possible, isn't
4 it?
5 A. Beginning to, I would have to agree, sir, yes.
6 Q. Thank you. I have left out of this altogether for the
7 moment the Fiat because I think you will agree that at
8 the moment -- at the moment -- it has not been possible
9 to identify whose Fiat it was.
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. Sorry, that is a badly phrased question; who was driving
12 the Fiat.
13 A. Either way, sir, I agree.
14 Q. One factor I have not put into this whole scenario, of
15 course, is the presence of a bright flash. All right?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. Now, again, a carefully worded question: there is some
18 evidence that there was a bright flash in the tunnel.
19 That is correct, isn't it?
20 A. It is.
21 Q. Now a bright flash quite clearly would provide a serious
22 distraction for a driver already under pressure from
23 a motorcycle or cycles and blocking vehicles, wouldn't
24 it?
25 A. It would.

91

1 Q. And might be, if it has not happened before, the last
2 straw in terms of trying to control this vehicle?
3 A. It could, yes, sir.
4 Q. A flash -- and I am only putting it potentially -- could
5 arise from a number of sources, but I want to put to you
6 just two possible sources. One is the existence of
7 a flash camera on the motorcycle; correct?
8 A. It could do, yes.
9 Q. Alternatively, are you aware of anti-personnel
10 flash-guns?
11 A. Within the context of this investigation, yes, sir.
12 Q. It could arise from some such device as that, couldn't
13 it?
14 A. It could.
15 Q. Now there is only one other matter I want to ask you.
16 Just going back to the videos, if you wouldn't mind.
17 You can close up the plan if you wish. Those videos
18 that the jury saw this morning and everyone saw this
19 morning were filmed in 1998.
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. I take it that it is not you speaking on the film.
22 A. No, it is not.
23 Q. Right. Now, at the time -- so that the jury have
24 the picture with regard to this -- in 1998, the Stevens
25 inquiry had not begun, had it?

92

1 A. No, it had not.
2 Q. In 1998 -- it was filmed in February -- it was
3 the French authorities that were investigating or
4 continuing to investigate, on the face of it at that
5 time, the actions of the paparazzi.
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. Now what the jury may not have realised, but they may
8 have, I do not know, that on the night-time video, but
9 particularly on the daytime one, it is clear that the
10 car with the camera is being escorted by French police.
11 A. It does appear that way, yes.
12 Q. In other words, the car in front that is leading the
13 way -- it may not be the same car in the evening -- has
14 radio contact with British police officers in the car
15 behind.
16 A. I do not know. I cannot answer that question.
17 Q. Well, I want to ask you a little bit more about it. Can
18 you help? What was the object of the British police in
19 1998 doing these runs?
20 A. I do not know.
21 Q. Well, who does?
22 A. I do not know that either.
23 Q. Well, were you not asked at the beginning of the inquest
24 informally about this?
25 A. I do not recall.

93

1 Q. No. All right. I cannot pursue it further than that.
2 You don't recall being asked. Well, we can see in
3 the video, it has "MP" at the top --
4 A. Yes, indeed.
5 Q. -- which one suspects refers to the Metropolitan Police;
6 is that right?
7 A. You are absolutely right.
8 Q. So somebody must know what the Metropolitan Police were
9 doing in 1998 in Paris with the consent of the French
10 police because they are there escorting the car.
11 A. I absolutely accept what you say. I do not know who
12 it was and I do not know who knows.
13 Q. Well, there must be a report on this exercise, must
14 there not, somewhere?
15 A. Again, I can only accept that there must be, but I have
16 not seen one.
17 Q. I wonder if you would be very kind and seek it out for
18 us.
19 A. I will make the best efforts.
20 MR MANSFIELD: Thank you very much.
21 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Keen?
22 MR KEEN: Sir, Mr Croxford is going to deal largely with
23 the expert reports. I wonder if I could simply reserve
24 my position at this time. I do not anticipate that
25 I will have any questions for the witness, but if I may

94

1 do so to avoid duplication at this stage.
2 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Yes.
3 MR KEEN: I am obliged.
4 MR CROXFORD: I am happy to say that I have put a line
5 through a page and a bit of my notes as a result of
6 Mr Mansfield's cross-examination.
7 Questions from MR CROXFORD
8 MR CROXFORD: Sergeant Read, you are still a serving police
9 officer; is that right?
10 A. Yes, I am.
11 Q. You were first instructed in connection with this crash
12 in March or April of 2004; is that right?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. Since then, you have devoted a considerable amount of
15 your working time to your work in connection with this
16 crash. Is that right?
17 A. Yes, sir, it is.
18 Q. Were you part of the team of police officers convened to
19 work under the stewardship of Lord Stevens, who is
20 sitting along from me?
21 A. Yes, I was.
22 Q. Were you part of what we might describe in shorthand as
23 part of the Paget team?
24 A. That is correct, yes.
25 Q. You were the lead internal Metropolitan Police officer

95

1 dealing with vehicle reconstruction, correct?
2 A. That is correct, yes.
3 Q. Before Lord Stevens published his report in December of
4 last year, were you aware, broadly, of the conclusions
5 which he was going to make public as to the collision
6 between a Fiat and the Mercedes car?
7 A. Indirectly I think I obviously was because I had come to
8 some conclusions and I was privy to the conclusions that
9 the Transport Research Laboratory had come to and I was
10 aware that those conclusions were going to be
11 incorporated in that report.
12 Q. In summary, did you expect that your conclusions would
13 be mirrored by public statements -- very short ones I am
14 going to take -- to this effect: that there was
15 a glancing contact between the Mercedes driven by
16 Henri Paul and a white Fiat Uno just before
17 the Alma Underpass?
18 A. That was one of my conclusions and I assume it is not
19 surprising that it was used.
20 Q. And equally:
21 "The Fiat Uno was involved in a glancing blow.
22 Reconstructions showed that perhaps there was a loss of
23 control of the Mercedes vehicle before it may well have
24 had a glancing blow on the Uno."
25 A. That may be a little in advance of my conclusions.

96

1 There was certainly -- I certainly came to the
2 conclusion that there was a driving input by Henri Paul
3 before the impact with the Fiat, but whether it actually
4 lost control before the impact with the Fiat I think is
5 a moot point at the moment.
6 Q. So that was not your opinion back in December of 2006?
7 A. Certainly the loss of control started as a result of the
8 steering input to avoid the Fiat.
9 Q. I would just like to know for clarity, please: was it
10 your opinion in December of 2006 that there was the loss
11 of control in the Mercedes car before any impact with
12 the Uno?
13 A. I do not think I can answer the question much better,
14 other than to say that the start of the sequence of
15 movements that resulted in a loss of control started
16 before the impact with the Fiat.
17 Q. Next, please, you have been asked a series of questions
18 by Mr Hilliard by reference to a report which you made
19 on 10th December of last year. That is right, isn't it?
20 A. That is correct, yes.
21 Q. And indeed -- and I make no complaint about this -- you
22 have, in giving your evidence, substantially read out
23 parts of your report, haven't you?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. That report was prepared as part of the Paget team work?

97

1 A. Yes, it was.
2 Q. And it was also prepared in part to be delivered to the
3 Coroner for the purposes of these inquests?
4 A. That is correct, yes.
5 Q. In preparing that report, you recognised, did you, that
6 you owed certain duties? I would just like to mention
7 one or two to you. Was this one of the duties that you
8 recognised, that you have drawn attention -- you
9 actually said, "I have drawn to the attention of the
10 court all matters of which I am aware that might
11 adversely affect my opinion"?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Was that an accurate statement of your belief on
14 10th December 2006?
15 A. Yes, it was.
16 Q. Did you also say that you had not included anything in
17 the report which has been suggested to you by anyone
18 without forming your own independent view of the matter?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Finally on this, did you say that at the time of signing
21 your report, 10th December last year, you considered it
22 to be complete and accurate?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. And if any fresh evidence came to your attention which
25 caused you to believe that the report required

98

1 correction or qualification, you would bring it to
2 the attention of the Coroner?
3 A. That is correct, sir, yes.
4 Q. Next, please, I would like to move on. I would like, if
5 I may, now to ask you some questions about what you say
6 about that Mercedes motor car that was involved in
7 the crash.
8 If I may, I will begin with some general questions.
9 The vehicle was not quite three years old, I think, and
10 had done just under 26,000 miles.
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. From your examination of the tyres, the brakes,
13 the steering, the suspension and so forth, all were in
14 good working order?
15 A. They were, but I would like to point out to you that
16 most of that work was done by Mr Price from TRL.
17 Q. And you accompanied Mr Price during the course of that
18 exercise?
19 A. For the most part, but not in its entirety.
20 Q. You are aware of nothing in the report of Mr Price which
21 would suggest that there was any defect in any of those
22 parts of the vehicle?
23 A. That is absolutely true.
24 Q. Or indeed in any of the other parts of the vehicle? It
25 seemed to be a car in good working order and a good

99

1 state of repair?
2 A. Absolutely.
3 Q. There is nothing of which you are aware in connection
4 with the condition of the car which could have caused or
5 contributed to any loss of control?
6 A. No, I am not.
7 Q. You yourself, yesterday, described the car as being an
8 executive saloon. That is right, isn't it?
9 A. That is correct, yes.
10 Q. It was part of a range of saloons manufactured by
11 Daimler Benz/Mercedes Benz; correct?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. This was the range that was at the top of the range for
14 their saloon cars?
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. And the S class saloon then, and perhaps even today,
17 would be the sort of car that many would aspire to have
18 owned as being, if not the best, then amongst the best
19 cars available in the world?
20 A. Yes, I think so.
21 Q. It had a range of engines, trim, throughout the S class
22 range, but even the basic car, the 280, was an
23 impressive piece of motor engineering, wasn't it?
24 A. It was.
25 Q. Just to get an idea about this small-engined car in the

100

1 range, the S280, still available today?
2 A. I am not sure.
3 Q. It may be that overnight you might remind yourself.
4 I am going to suggest to you that if you wanted to buy
5 one, the modern equivalent -- and it gives us an idea of
6 what it might have been back in 1997 -- you would have
7 to part with over £50,000. This was an expensive piece
8 of kit.
9 A. That does not surprise me at all.
10 Q. If you want to buy one today, over 50,000.
11 The range of engines, 2.8 litre on this particular
12 one and you have mentioned the 6 litre.
13 A. That is correct, sir.
14 Q. The 6 litre obviously had pretty impressive
15 acceleration. What did you say, 6.6 seconds to 60 miles
16 per hour?
17 A. Something of that order.
18 Q. That, I suppose, would make it good competition for the
19 hot hatches at the lights?
20 A. Yes, I think so.
21 Q. But the 280, not such good acceleration?
22 A. No.
23 Q. It was comparable to many other cars of markedly lesser
24 expense, and I think you have mentioned in your report
25 two in terms of acceleration, have you not?

101

1 A. Yes, I did, the Nissan Primera --
2 Q. 2 litre.
3 A. 2 litre, yes. It had very similar performance figures
4 for a new vehicle.
5 Q. And the Vauxhall Astra, 1.6 litre.
6 A. Yes, I think that was just slightly slower.
7 Q. Obviously much smaller, lighter cars --
8 A. Yes, they are.
9 Q. -- with mid-range engines in them.
10 A. I would describe the Astra as a smaller range.
11 Q. On the streets generally, back in 1997, there would have
12 been a considerable number of cars available with
13 capacity to accelerate at least as fast as the
14 280S Mercedes?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. In your report -- and I will take you first to that so
17 that other people can follow; 10.26.2, please -- you
18 have given some evidence today about the ability of
19 paparazzi motorcycles to keep up with this Mercedes car.
20 Do you remember that?
21 A. Yes, I do.
22 Q. You entered a caveat of sorts in respect of Mr Darmon's
23 Honda 650, didn't you?
24 A. Yes, sir. Would that be to the effect that it was not
25 quite as comparable to the Mercedes?

102

1 Q. Well, yes, but let's just investigate and make it good.
2 On the French figures -- do you have those there in
3 front of you still?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. On the French figures, over 100 metres or over
6 400 metres, that 650 Honda accelerated faster than the
7 Mercedes 280, didn't it?
8 A. I only have a note of two tests for the Honda. One was
9 over 100 metres and one was over 400 metres.
10 Q. And over 100 metres ...?
11 A. Over 100 metres it was comparable.
12 Q. 7.4 seconds --
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. -- as opposed to 7.8 for the Mercedes.
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. What was it, 17 seconds over 400 metres as opposed to
17 18 seconds for the Mercedes --
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. -- assuming that both vehicles were accelerating to
20 their maximum capacity?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. If there had been a clear run of 1,400 metres, then the
23 Mercedes would have taken 41 seconds to do that and
24 the Honda would have taken 48?
25 A. That is correct.

103

1 Q. So at some stage over a clear run of 1,400 metres, the
2 Mercedes might have been able to get away if both had
3 been accelerating full speed?
4 A. Yes, indeed.
5 Q. But of course there was not a clear run of 1,400 metres
6 between the turn-on to the expressway and the
7 Alma Tunnel, was there?
8 A. No, that is correct.
9 Q. In addition to that, in respect of the motor cars which
10 the French looked at and we have heard of in this case,
11 the Peugeot 205 and the Mitsubishi Pajero, broadly
12 speaking, they could certainly keep in touch with the
13 Mercedes, couldn't they, even assuming the Mercedes
14 accelerated to its maximum effect?
15 A. I would be happy to agree with you as regards the 205.
16 The test that was done on the Pajero does not really
17 allow one to come to such a firm conclusion.
18 Q. Was it a test or was it manufacturer's data?
19 A. I believe this was a test -- oh, I think that was
20 manufacturer's data.
21 Q. Thank you. So the 205 at least could keep up?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Now this engine size of the 280S and its ability to
24 accelerate did not alter the fundamental design
25 characteristics of that car whether as to its stability

104

1 or inherent safety, did it?
2 A. I do not believe it did. I know there are certain
3 optimal extras that are -- I beg your pardon. There are
4 certain extras that are options on the 280 that are
5 standard on the 600.
6 Q. You have worked in connection with your work together
7 with Mr Parry, have you not?
8 A. I have, yes.
9 Q. You would not disagree -- or perhaps you were party to
10 discussions with Daimler Chrysler which indicated that
11 the construction, specifications and handling
12 performance of the 280S and the 500S -- that is the
13 5-litre model, isn't it?
14 A. It is, yes.
15 Q. -- are very similar with the only slight differences
16 being in mass, inertias and suspension stiffness?
17 A. Yes, I was privy to those conversations.
18 Q. And that those factors were insufficient to alter the
19 fundamental handling characteristics of the vehicle?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. So we have a prestige executive saloon which I think you
22 have described as having a "soft ride".
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Soft when compared to what? The average family saloon
25 here in Britain?

105

1 A. Certainly today, but even in 1997 it was a soft ride.
2 Q. Not a surprise, I imagine, to someone as experienced as
3 you because this was not the 280, an average family
4 saloon, was it?
5 A. No, it was not.
6 Q. It was designed to provide comfort as well as particular
7 performance and safety.
8 A. Yes, that is correct.
9 Q. As far as safety is concerned, anti-lock braking?
10 A. Yes, it did.
11 Q. Central passenger safety cage?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Crumple zones?
14 A. Indeed.
15 Q. Airbags?
16 A. Yes, there were two front airbags.
17 Q. Traction control?
18 A. I believe it did not have traction control, but it did
19 have anti-slip acceleration.
20 Q. So that if you accelerated too rapidly for the road
21 surface and the wheels span, then the anti-slip would
22 cut in?
23 A. Yes, that is correct. I do not believe it had traction
24 control, certainly not as we would understand it these
25 days.

106

1 Q. You had not driven a 280, is that right, before you
2 tested one for the purposes of your work?
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. You say that when you did test one that initially you
5 were surprised by some unexpected pitching, fore and aft
6 movement, and rolling, side to side movement.
7 A. Yes, I was.
8 Q. On reflection, of course, bearing in mind that this was
9 a car built not only for those of us of a certain
10 stature to travel in comfort, but for people wanting
11 a soft executive ride, not too surprising that the car
12 did have some pitch and some roll?
13 A. Absolutely not.
14 Q. What that reflected was some movement of the passenger
15 area --
16 A. Yes, it does.
17 Q. -- within the design of the vehicle?
18 A. Yes, I believe so.
19 Q. And that whilst there may have been some pitching and
20 rolling which you did not expect, the chassis sat fair
21 and square on the road, didn't it?
22 A. Absolutely, and as I became more familiar with the
23 vehicle and particularly under more extreme driving
24 conditions, I became perfectly satisfied with the
25 driving capabilities of it.

107

1 Q. Yes, you described it in the end that you found it to be
2 very capable.
3 A. Yes, indeed.
4 Q. And it was an impressive piece of engineering; correct?
5 A. As a vehicle, yes.
6 Q. What is more, even though you are no doubt a very
7 experienced driver, it did not take you very long to
8 adjust to this car, did it?
9 A. No, it did not.
10 Q. You very quickly found that this was a car that you
11 could drive with confidence at speed?
12 A. I did.
13 Q. And it was a car which you could manoeuvre at speed with
14 confidence?
15 A. Yes, it was.
16 Q. I would like to ask you one or two questions about what
17 you have said about Henri Paul.
18 I think you were led to say this morning that
19 Henri Paul was not experienced in driving this type of
20 car. Was that right?
21 A. He was inexperienced at driving this particular car, but
22 I think -- I am quite sure I added -- that he was not an
23 inexperienced driver and he had actually undertaken,
24 I think it was, five driving courses with
25 Daimler Chrysler in the years leading up to this.

108

1 Q. I will ask you about that in a moment. When you say
2 inexperienced with this particular car, do you mean only
3 this particular S280 that crashed on that night?
4 A. Well, I think that goes without saying, this particular
5 S280. I am aware that he owned and ran a Mini of his
6 own. I have to accept that I do not know what other
7 driving experience he may have recently had prior to
8 this collision.
9 Q. You say "recently". In truth you have no idea, save for
10 his courses at Daimler Benz, whether or not he had
11 previously driven an S class Mercedes, for example in
12 the course of his work?
13 A. No, I do not. I understand that he was not employed as
14 a driver.
15 Q. Now, you do know -- and let me just ask you about one or
16 two of the details quickly if I may -- however, that
17 Mr Paul had been away on specialist driving courses on
18 a number of occasions organised by Daimler Benz; yes?
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. He had been to five courses between May of 1988 and June
21 of 1991; correct?
22 A. That is correct.
23 Q. You are also aware that the Metropolitan Police obtained
24 details of those courses and what was on offer; correct?
25 A. Yes, sir.

109

1 Q. Those details were passed to one of your colleagues,
2 Inspector Rodger, from the Metropolitan Police Driving
3 School; is that right?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Taking it in pretty brief summary, these were two-day
6 driving courses conducted at one or both of racing
7 circuits in Germany?
8 A. Yes, they were.
9 Q. It appeared that the first day, spent at, I think,
10 Hockenheim, was using Mercedes saloon cars, in some
11 cases specified as having "extremely sporty handling
12 characteristics"; correct?
13 A. Yes, I am aware of that.
14 Q. The exercises dealt with a range of activities, starting
15 with the simple and developing through to more complex
16 steering activities?
17 A. Yes, that is correct.
18 Q. Braking and differing road surfaces and so forth;
19 correct?
20 A. Yes, that is absolutely true.
21 Q. Then the second day at another course introduced more
22 complex combinations of steering and braking?
23 A. That is correct.
24 Q. Including some unusual techniques for turning cars
25 around?

110

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And indeed techniques for forcing other cars off
3 the road?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Then there were details of exercises to be undertaken
6 against the clock or to be done without hitting
7 obstructions.
8 A. Yes, that is true.
9 Q. The outcome of all of this is these exercises were not
10 activities which one would have expected a novice driver
11 successfully to undertake?
12 A. I think that is a good assumption, sir, yes.
13 Q. The example of how to turn the car around would have
14 been something comfortably beyond that which your
15 colleague at least would have expected of a driver when
16 passing his driving test?
17 A. Yes, completely.
18 Q. The courses appeared to be well thought out and well
19 structured; correct?
20 A. Yes. I would just like to point out that these are
21 Inspector Rodger's comments, not mine.
22 Q. Do you disagree with them?
23 A. No, I don't. I just want to be sure that this is not my
24 view -- these have been formed by Inspector Rodger --
25 but I would not disagree with it.

111

1 Q. Have you considered the content of these courses?
2 A. I have read the brochure and the results sheets.
3 Q. The substance of what was going on here was that
4 the training was geared towards controlling vehicles in
5 what might be described as critical conditions, was it
6 not?
7 A. Yes, it was.
8 Q. Part of the courses were concerned with what you might
9 have regarded as being some sort of anti-hijack driving
10 programme?
11 A. Yes, it could be considered in that nature.
12 Q. This would be right, wouldn't it? The techniques of
13 car-handling skills which were being taught to Mr Paul
14 were quite advanced compared to those used in normal
15 everyday driving by the vast majority of drivers?
16 A. I have to answer that question with a "yes but".
17 Q. Well, let's have the "yes" and then you give the "but".
18 A. That is because the courses that have been developed by
19 Daimler Chrysler teach a person how to handle the
20 vehicle in a critical condition, as you rightly point
21 out.
22 Advanced driving courses are designed to allow or to
23 help drivers to identify hazards, to stop them getting
24 into the critical situation in the first place. So
25 there is a big distinction between the advanced handling

112

1 techniques that were being taught here and true, proper,
2 advanced driving courses.
3 Q. Well, you say that, and your "but" is in fact about
4 something I was not asking you about.
5 You say this, do you, that if I were asking you
6 questions about what one would do in this country to
7 become what might be described as an "advanced driver",
8 one of the things that someone would be taught would be
9 how to anticipate and avoid the difficult situations --
10 is that right?
11 A. That is correct.
12 Q. -- whereas what Mr Paul was being taught by Daimler Benz
13 was taking a range of saloon cars, including some very
14 high-powered ones, and what to do in difficult driving
15 conditions?
16 A. I would not call them "difficult driving conditions",
17 I would call them "unusual driving conditions". They
18 are not the sort of conditions that the average driver
19 would find themselves in.
20 Q. An unusual combination of speed and the ability to
21 manoeuvre the vehicles?
22 A. Yes, indeed.
23 Q. In those courses teaching him about speed and how to
24 manoeuvre the vehicles, can you confirm that he was part
25 of classes of about 30 people?

113

1 A. Yes, I can.
2 Q. His worst result was, what, 19th out of 31?
3 A. I have not made a note of --
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Mr Croxford, do you think
5 we could get on to 1997 now and get away from what
6 happened years and years before?
7 Nobody is suggesting, I think, that M Paul was other
8 than a perfectly competent driver.
9 MR CROXFORD: With the greatest of respect, sir, Mr Hilliard
10 led from this witness that he had no experience in
11 driving this car.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Different point.
13 MR CROXFORD: Well, I will, of course, move on when I have
14 finished this point unless you say I must stop now.
15 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I am not stopping you if there is
16 any relevant evidence for us to hear, but I have been
17 pretty doubtful for the last quarter of an hour whether
18 we have actually advanced the inquest at all.
19 MR CROXFORD: I regret that, sir. It is obviously my fault
20 for failing to make it clear the issues that I am
21 dealing with. Perhaps I will move on to something else
22 and see if that helps.
23 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
24 MR CROXFORD: In the evidence you gave to this jury, you
25 also mentioned something called "oversteer". Do you

114

1 remember that?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Presumably that is relevant to something the jury
4 have to consider. Oversteer is where, in certain
5 circumstances, a car, when responding to steering, would
6 tend to steer slightly more than the car geometry and
7 set-up of the wheels would suggest?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. So if, for example, this Mercedes was approaching
10 the bend leading down into the Alma Tunnel and oversteer
11 occurred, it would tend to draw it in to the inside part
12 of the bend.
13 A. Yes, it would.
14 Q. Of course, one has to be balanced about this. This
15 particular car was engineered with a compensatory
16 feature designed to minimise the effect of oversteer,
17 was it not?
18 A. I believe it was.
19 Q. Passive rear-wheel steering?
20 A. Indeed.
21 Q. Nonetheless, if one was seeking to drive fast into this
22 bend, the line to be taken by the fast driver would be
23 to stick as close to the inner part of the bend as
24 possible?
25 A. I am sorry, could you repeat that, please?

115

1 Q. Yes. If one was seeking to drive fast into this bend,
2 the line to be taken is to stick as close to the inside
3 of the bend as possible?
4 A. Sorry, I do not agree with that.
5 Q. What do you say the driver would do?
6 A. This is a left-hand band and would approach as close to
7 the right-hand side as possible. As the bend develops,
8 would move to the left, as possible, and as the bend
9 decreases or the severity of the bend decreases and
10 the road straightens out, move back to the right.
11 Q. So you would have this car coming from the left fast
12 lane, where a number of witnesses have seen it -- is
13 that right?
14 A. No, I am approaching it in the right lane.
15 Q. You would approach it all the way in the slow right-hand
16 lane, would you?
17 A. If we have a left bend without any obstructions at all,
18 you would approach it as far over to the right as you
19 can, what is called "apexing the bend", touching the
20 left-hand kerb at the apex of the bend, and when you
21 leave the bend, you come out as far to the right again
22 as you can.
23 Q. If one is approaching this bend in the fast left-hand
24 lane, then the natural line then is to hug the inside of
25 bend, isn't it?

116

1 A. One follows the line of the road.
2 Q. And that would be hugging the inside of the bend?
3 A. I am not sure I could agree with "hugging the inside of
4 the bend", but if you were to stay in the left lane, you
5 could still straighten out a little bit by approaching
6 in the right-hand side of the left lane, kissing the
7 apex of the bend and exiting again on the right-hand
8 side of the left lane.
9 Q. I will come back and ask you something about that
10 presently. Let me ask you something about kick-down.
11 Some members of the jury may not be familiar with
12 driving automatic cars. A kick-down facility is an
13 ordinary everyday standard design feature on all or
14 almost all automatic vehicles, isn't it?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. It enables the driver literally, by kicking down on the
17 accelerator pedal, to drop a gear in certain
18 circumstances?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. It is available as part of the design of the car, but
21 only available as part of the designed use of the car.
22 You look troubled. Let me explain.
23 A. Sorry, I did not understand that.
24 Q. The gearbox on this Mercedes was set up to work in
25 conjunction with the engine and, in particular, the

117

1 revolutions of the engine.
2 A. Yes, of course.
3 Q. And the kick-down would only work if the engine and
4 the revolutions were operating at that time within their
5 design parameters?
6 A. Yes, I see what you mean. Yes, that is true.
7 Q. If you were going too fast, no kick-down would be
8 available at all?
9 A. Yes, if we were travelling extremely fast, it would not
10 be possible to kick it down into the next gear.
11 Q. Right. When it kicks down into the next gear, the
12 effect is to produce a rapid increase in the revolutions
13 of the engine; correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. That is part of the designed effect?
16 A. Well, it is a function of kicking down -- of selecting
17 a lower gear. The engine has to rev faster to maintain
18 the same speed.
19 Q. And this particular Mercedes had a limiter to stop the
20 revolutions at 6,500 per minute?
21 A. That is correct.
22 Q. But the effect of kicking down, if the car was
23 travelling at, say, 60 miles per hour, would have been
24 to produce a substantial increase in engine noise?
25 A. Yes, it would.

118

1 Q. Next you were shown those films of somebody driving
2 through the Alma Tunnel at just over 60 miles per hour
3 this morning. Do you remember that?
4 A. Yes, I was.
5 Q. You, of course, have yourself driven through that
6 tunnel, have you not?
7 A. Yes, I have.
8 Q. Have you driven through at 60 miles per hour?
9 A. Yes, I did.
10 Q. You did not have a Mercedes. You did it, I think, in
11 a Renault Laguna.
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. Even in a Renault Laguna, whilst there was some
14 lightening of the suspension as you went from the flat
15 to begin the down, that was easily controlled?
16 A. It was.
17 Q. And you found that you could control the steering of the
18 Laguna without any difficulty at all?
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Next you gave some evidence yesterday about your
21 inspection of the Mercedes car.
22 A. Yes, I did.
23 Q. The collection of it I think in two parts, in two boxes,
24 and bringing it back to London; yes?
25 A. Yes, I did.

119

1 Q. Part of the inspection which you hoped or would have
2 wanted to have carried out would have been an inspection
3 seeking to see the evidence of any collision between
4 the Mercedes and a Fiat car?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. You would have wanted to see the front right-hand wing
7 of the Mercedes and the front right door?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. You never saw them, did you?
10 A. No, I did not.
11 Q. This is right, is it, that the front right wing had been
12 destroyed by the French authorities on 17th June 2003 by
13 being crushed?
14 A. I understand so, yes, sir.
15 Q. Did you also understand that the fate of the front right
16 door is uncertain? It may have been destroyed in a fire
17 in May of 1999, but, in any event, has never been
18 available to you or anyone else here in England.
19 A. That is correct.
20 Q. Obviously, then, you were not able to conduct or
21 organise for the Metropolitan Police to conduct paint
22 tests on those pieces of Mercedes.
23 A. That is true, sir.
24 Q. You also gave evidence that you and your fellow experts
25 have reached agreement on aspects of the case including,

120

1 as you were saying yesterday, the fact of a collision
2 between the Mercedes and a white Fiat.
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. Just so that we can understand this -- and for those who
5 are keeping a note, it is the passage in the joint
6 statement, 1.2 and following -- you and your fellow two
7 experts have concluded, not from your own personal
8 investigations, but principally basing yourself upon
9 the evidence of the French investigations, that there
10 was first of all traces of paint from a white Fiat Uno
11 on the Mercedes Benz. Correct?
12 A. That is correct.
13 Q. And that there were, amongst the pieces of debris,
14 traces of plastic from a Fiat Uno.
15 A. That is correct.
16 Q. To the extent that it has been possible, I think the
17 Metropolitan Police asked a scientist here in the UK to
18 look at that work.
19 A. Yes, we did.
20 Q. So your agreement that there was a collision between
21 the Mercedes and the Fiat is essentially dictated by
22 what the enquiries in France produced.
23 A. That is perfectly true, yes.
24 Q. Next, please, in your report -- for your benefit and
25 those who are following, at section 10,

121

1 paragraph 19.1 -- you talk about, in this section -- and
2 you gave some evidence about this this morning --
3 reaction times for drivers in order to steer or,
4 I think, brake.
5 A. Yes, I did.
6 Q. The first thing is there is no ready reckoner; there is
7 no reliable rule about this, how long it takes.
8 A. Absolutely. I fully accept that.
9 Q. Is this right? You went on to consider, when preparing
10 this report, first of all, the possibility that Mr Henri
11 Paul had been consuming alcohol that evening?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. To be fair to you, I think, when you gave evidence about
14 it today, you mentioned that you understood that that
15 was a matter of some dispute.
16 A. Yes, I am aware about that.
17 Q. You did know that, though, in December of 2006, didn't
18 you?
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. But you did not mention that it was a matter of dispute,
21 did you?
22 A. No, I did not.
23 Q. You simply took your assumption that he had been
24 drinking and carried it over to your conclusions, didn't
25 you?

122

1 A. I think it is a little more than an assumption that he
2 had been drinking, but yes, it was in my conclusions.
3 Q. Without the qualification that it was disputed?
4 A. The evidence on which this report was based, there was
5 no dispute. I am aware that dispute has been brought
6 into the proceedings by other people, but the French
7 dossier clearly puts a blood/alcohol level for
8 Henri Paul.
9 Q. You gave some evidence this morning by reference to 12.2
10 of your report. Quite apart from this assumption as to
11 driver impairment, you described -- and indeed it
12 provoked the Coroner to ask you a question about it --
13 something called a "challenging road layout".
14 A. Yes, I did.
15 Q. A road layout with which you coped perfectly well when
16 you drove your Laguna --
17 A. I did.
18 Q. -- and the film driver coped perfectly well when he
19 drove through on six occasions?
20 A. He did.
21 Q. You also talked about Henri Paul's unfamiliarity with
22 the vehicle as being possibly a contributory factor to
23 this crash, and yet I think, as you now accept, that you
24 don't know whether Henri Paul was familiar or not with
25 the S class Mercedes.

123

1 A. I have to accept that, yes.
2 Q. You talked about excess speed, I think, as being
3 a possibly contributory factor.
4 A. Yes, I did.
5 Q. It is commonplace, you would accept, would you not,
6 having driven it yourself, seen the film of that piece
7 of road and otherwise observed drivers, to find people
8 driving at 60 or 70 miles per hour along that piece of
9 road?
10 A. I cannot agree, sir.
11 Q. You don't.
12 Next, after you had first been instructed to take
13 part in the Paget team, you presumably set about
14 familiarising yourself with the evidence that was
15 available concerning reconstruction of the crash?
16 A. Yes, I did.
17 Q. And in July of 2004, you produced a report, didn't you?
18 A. Yes, I did.
19 Q. That was for the purposes of the Paget team, was it?
20 A. Yes, it was.
21 Q. At that stage you had reviewed all the available
22 evidence relevant to reconstruction, had you?
23 A. I believe I had.
24 Q. And as far as available evidence was concerned, nothing
25 new came to light between July of 2004 and December

124

1 2006, did it?
2 A. Yes, we had engaged the Transport Research Laboratory
3 and carried out all the vehicle analyses tests and
4 simulations.
5 Q. So simulations, this is where using a computer and
6 computer programs, tests are carried out to see whether
7 the road markings, the tyre markings found on the road,
8 could match the movement of a Mercedes going through
9 that tunnel; yes?
10 A. That was the initial instruction to TRL, yes.
11 Q. And otherwise you have been working in concert with
12 Mr Jennings, another reconstruction expert?
13 A. That is correct.
14 Q. But the raw material upon which you were forming your
15 opinions had not otherwise changed, had it?
16 A. No, it had not. The road markings -- no, they had not.
17 Q. You see, do you have your report of July 2004 there?
18 A. No, I do not.
19 Q. Perhaps you will remember this, if I just read to you
20 two paragraphs. It is only seven lines.
21 "In connection with the first tyre mark [the single
22 tyre mark]. The significance of the first tyre mark
23 being associated with the Mercedes is that this mark is
24 entirely contained within the left-hand traffic lane."
25 Nothing has changed there so far; correct?

125

1 A. No, it has not.
2 Q. "Its position in the left-hand lane combined with the
3 width of the Mercedes means that it did not encroach
4 into the right-hand lane."
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. "The consequence of this is that the Fiat (?) must have
7 been at least partially in the left-hand lane, ie not
8 driving normally within its own lane."
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. So your conclusion in July 2004 was that the Fiat was in
11 the fast left-hand lane, was it not?
12 A. No, that was not a conclusion. That was just
13 highlighting an issue that would need to be addressed.
14 Q. "The significance of the first tyre mark is that it is
15 entirely contained within the left-hand lane. Its
16 position in the left-hand lane combined with width means
17 the Mercedes did not encroach into the right-hand lane.
18 The consequence of this ..."
19 That was your conclusion, was it not, Mr Read?
20 A. I would say it is not a conclusion. It is highlighting
21 a point that would need further investigation.
22 Q. Very well. Let me ask you about something else.
23 You have given some evidence today, I think, about
24 the sliproad to come off the expressway once the
25 Mercedes had passed through the Alexandre III tunnel --

126

1 A. Yes, indeed.
2 Q. -- and your opinion, I think, that at 90 miles per hour
3 the car would be going too fast, but it might just have
4 been able to do it at 60, although it would have been
5 difficult.
6 A. That is correct.
7 Q. If the Mercedes had been travelling through the
8 Alexandre III tunnel at, say, 60 or 70 miles per hour or
9 even 80 miles per hour, it would have had no problem in
10 braking to slow down to turn off to use the sliproad,
11 would it?
12 A. Absolutely, I agree.
13 Q. If a stopping distance -- does this sound right -- to
14 stop from 70 miles per hour to a complete standstill
15 would only take about 96 metres --
16 A. Yes, that is true.
17 Q. -- to slow down from, what, 70 miles per hour to
18 a sensible safe speed of, say, 40 miles per hour --
19 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: The witness has already agreed
20 with you, Mr Croxford, on this.
21 MR CROXFORD: Yes, he has, sir. I apologise if I am taking
22 things too slowly for the jury, but I am trying to make
23 sure, as a bear of very small brain, that I have
24 understood what it is with a view to ensuring that
25 everyone else in the room understands the position, and

127

1 I am putting the position in terms that are very simple
2 and of direct application to this particular
3 circumstance.
4 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: What is perfectly clear is that
5 Mr Read says that the driver, even if he was going at up
6 to 70 through the tunnel, could perfectly easily have
7 slowed down and gone off on the sliproad.
8 MR CROXFORD: Of course he could, and I am about to ask him
9 just how little room would have been required for that.
10 I am sorry if this is tiresome, sir, but this is an
11 absolutely central part of my interested person's case.
12 Now to slow down from 70 to, say, 40 miles per hour
13 might have taken, what, 30 or 40 metres?
14 A. It depends on the rate of deceleration, but that would
15 not be unrealistic.
16 Q. You also gave evidence today that not the sliproad off
17 but the sliproad on -- no, not today, yesterday --
18 enjoyed priorite a droite.
19 A. Yes, I did.
20 Q. Where did you get that information from?
21 A. From the French court-appointed expert who was assigned
22 to deal with our queries.
23 Q. Is there a document in respect of it?
24 A. I believe there is.
25 Q. I wonder if somebody at some stage could provide me with

128

1 it. Had not Mr Pourceau told you that, in fact, the
2 priorities were the other way round?
3 A. Yes. I thought I made that point in my own report, in
4 actual fact.
5 Q. Mr Pourceau's advice to you was that the expressway
6 enjoyed priority here, was it not?
7 A. It was him, I do recall it being him, and I was sure
8 that I had actually made that point in my report.
9 Q. Well, if you had, we were assisted, I think the day
10 before yesterday or it may even have been yesterday, by
11 being provided with a document from Mr Pourceau which
12 appears to make that clear. Anyway, you think Pourceau
13 is wrong, do you?
14 A. Not at all. As I say, I thought I had made it clear in
15 my report that there was a conflict about priorite
16 a droite.
17 Q. Well you did not make it clear in your evidence, even if
18 you made it clear in your report.
19 A. Well, I am happy to make it clear now.
20 We were informed by the court-appointed expert that
21 priorite a droite was applicable at this junction. In
22 fact, in my point 10.29.7, our advice from Mr Nibodeau,
23 the Paris court-appointed expert, is that traffic
24 joining has priority at this sliproad. However, this
25 differs from the opinion provided verbally by other

129

1 sources familiar with this location.
2 Q. Not only verbally. You have had a document from
3 Mr Pourceau that we saw yesterday showing that the
4 expressway had priority.
5 A. I am more than happy to accept it. I thought it was
6 clear here that there is some confusion about whether
7 priorite a droite does actually apply or not.
8 Q. All right. Even if priorite a droite did apply in
9 respect of that sliproad, for a driver travelling in
10 the left hand fast lane of the expressway, vehicles
11 entering from the sliproad should not, in the ordinary
12 course, present any sort of difficulty or indeed give
13 rise to any particular interest?
14 A. While they are in the sliproad, sir, or whilst they are
15 joining the main carriageway?
16 Q. They come in through the sliproad. The driver in
17 the left-hand fast lane will see a car coming in, and
18 assuming that the right-hand slow lane is clear, he will
19 see ample space for the joining car to join the
20 expressway.
21 A. Yes, he ought.
22 Q. Very well. Let me ask you about something else. I want
23 to ask you some more questions now, particularly about
24 the first tyre mark, if we look at the plan which you
25 produced [INQ-PLAN-0007] the single tyre mark back

130

1 towards the entrance of the tunnel.
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Now, in road traffic reconstruction engineers' speak,
4 this is what is called a "subcritical mark", isn't it?
5 A. That is a phrase that has been developed during this
6 investigation. It is not a phrase that I had heard of
7 before we started to look at these tyre marks.
8 Q. Let us turn it round the other way for a moment. Had
9 you heard of a "critical mark"?
10 A. Oh yes, of course.
11 Q. A "critical tyre mark" is a tyre mark made when a car is
12 going so fast that it is running outside the geometry of
13 its steering. Put in English, that means it is
14 beginning to slip sideways --
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. -- and you explained, as it slips sideways, it leaves
17 these striations in the marks on the road.
18 A. That is absolutely true.
19 Q. "Striations" the French call "ripage", and the two tyre
20 marks further on in the tunnel are critical tyre marks,
21 aren't they?
22 A. Yes, they are.
23 Q. But this first tyre mark did not apparently have
24 striations, did it?
25 A. Well, that is not my understanding of Mr Pourceau's

131

1 evidence.
2 Q. The first tyre mark?
3 A. Indeed.
4 Q. You think Mr Pourceau said it had striations?
5 A. Yes, I do.
6 Q. Can you assist me by telling me where he said that?
7 A. I cannot point out to you in his evidence yesterday, but
8 certainly in my discussions with him and in his
9 statement that we took from him, I am absolutely
10 convinced that we talk about the tyre marks having
11 ripage and striations.
12 Q. You certainly talk about the two parallel tyre marks
13 having ripage or striations -- there is no dispute about
14 that, Mr Read -- because those are tyres which are
15 driving outside the grip which is available. Correct?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. But a tyre which is driving within the grip which is
18 available would not have striations, would it?
19 A. It would not necessarily leave a mark, in fact.
20 Q. Absolutely. I am going to ask you about that. In your
21 report, at 10.9.3, you talk about the absence of curved
22 tyre marks preceding the first mark, indicating that
23 the vehicle was being steered within the range of grip
24 available.
25 A. Yes. Could I ask you to confirm that point number

132

1 please?
2 Q. 10.9.3. If I go too fast at any time, do not hesitate
3 to ask me to slow down.
4 A. I only have 10 --
5 Q. Page 41.
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. There is nothing elsewhere in your report, is there,
8 which refers to there being striations or ripage marks
9 on the first tyre mark?
10 A. I do not think there is any indication of there being
11 striations in the second tyre marks either.
12 Q. Well --
13 A. I think it was -- my evidence is that I understand from
14 Mr Pourceau -- my understanding of Mr Pourceau's
15 evidence was that there were striations in all three
16 tyre marks.
17 Q. You do, in fact, refer to striations at 2.2.8 in
18 connection with the parallel set of two tyre marks --
19 A. Yes, I do.
20 Q. -- but not, I think, in connection with the first mark.
21 A. No, that is perfectly true.
22 Q. If you can assist me at some stage, and I will try to
23 find any evidence from Mr Pourceau that the earlier one
24 was a critical tyre mark.
25 Now, when rolling along the road in a normal

133

1 fashion, tyres don't leave marks on the road, do they?
2 A. No, they do not.
3 Q. A mark will be made when the combination of speed and
4 application of steering is such that there is sufficient
5 resistance between the road and the tyre to leave
6 a small deposit of rubber?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. And that as speed and/or steering increases, you move
9 from getting marks which at first will be very faint and
10 then become slightly more faint?
11 A. As speed increases, the marks start faint and become
12 fainter.
13 Q. No, it is my fault. If one leaves aside for the moment
14 critical speed marks and looks only at subcritical speed
15 marks, there will come a point, will there not, when
16 the particular combination of speed and steering begins
17 to give rise to a mark being left on the road?
18 A. Yes, it does.
19 Q. The more extreme -- that is, a combination of either
20 faster or more steering input or both -- the more
21 visible or more of a mark will be left on the road
22 surface --
23 A. Yes, that is true.
24 Q. -- until eventually the combination of speed and
25 steering will give rise to the loss of lateral grip and

134

1 we will get critical speed marks?
2 A. That is correct.
3 Q. The two parallel marks on the road were critical speed
4 marks, and it is a well-known method employed by
5 reconstruction engineers, such as yourself, that one can
6 use those marks to calculate speed of the vehicle.
7 A. That is true.
8 Q. In this case, apart from the Mercedes Benz exercise on
9 deformation where they crashed cars, you also carried
10 out the exercise of calculating speed by reference to
11 the tyre marks, didn't you?
12 A. Yes, we did.
13 Q. Your exercise there came up with a range of speed for
14 the Mercedes when travelling, creating those two tyre
15 marks, which was coincident with the crash tests?
16 A. Yes, it was within the accuracy of the measurements
17 we had to work with.
18 Q. 63/68 miles per hour as a sort of bracket?
19 A. Yes, it was.
20 Q. But the single mark before that, first of all it had
21 a very wide radius, didn't it?
22 A. It had a different radius to the pair.
23 Q. And a very shallow curve to it?
24 A. It was a very wide radius.
25 Q. Before the start of that first mark, you have seen no

135

1 evidence whatsoever of any other mark on the road which
2 would indicate a harsh or violent steering movement,
3 have you?
4 A. No, I have not.
5 Q. There is no evidence on the road to suggest that there
6 was any sudden or severe swerve by the Mercedes trying
7 to manoeuvre around some person or some thing?
8 A. There was not, but there may not necessarily have been
9 so.
10 Q. Whether or not the first mark had striations -- and I am
11 going to suggest to you that it did not -- it was by all
12 accounts very faint.
13 A. Yes, I think that is agreed.
14 Q. And one would expect a critical mark on a dry road
15 surface such as this to be clear and apparent?
16 A. As the vehicle continues along its curved path and
17 becomes into a more and more critical situation, as
18 indeed you described yourself, they go from being faint
19 to being very apparent, yes, but they would not
20 necessarily -- sorry, they will progress from being
21 faint to being very obvious.
22 Q. The sort of mark that one would see here with this wide
23 radius -- what was it, 132/134 metres?
24 A. Of that order, yes.
25 Q. -- you engineers can calculate something about speed

136

1 from that, can you?
2 A. Yes, we can.
3 Q. At that speed you would not have expected a subcritical
4 mark to have been created at less than about 80 miles
5 per hour?
6 A. That is true.
7 Q. So if the speed of the vehicle in the tunnel was in the
8 mid-60s, about the same when it entered as it was when
9 it crashed, the mark that one sees, the first mark, was
10 probably a subcritical mark, was it not?
11 A. It is that possibility, but I would also add that it is,
12 I think, agreed that the measurements that were taken
13 were not quite as good as they could have been. We have
14 had to calculate the radius of the mark from a very
15 indirect method of doing so; we have had to estimate
16 a level of grip between the road surface and the tyre.
17 So these figures that we have calculated, indeed from
18 this tyre mark and from the pair, do have a reasonably
19 wide margin of tolerance. So I think it would be
20 incorrect to quote a single figure.
21 Q. Now, but this would be correct, wouldn't it? You and
22 the other experts have agreed as follows, haven't you?
23 "Compared with the marks making up the pair of tyre
24 marks, the single tyre mark had a more open curvature.
25 If the single tyre mark were a critical speed mark with

137

1 no other forces acting on the Mercedes, then the open
2 curvature would signify a speed of about 80 miles per
3 hour."
4 A. Yes, and that is the figure that I am saying that
5 we should have a reasonably large degree of tolerance
6 on.
7 Q. "The experts do not consider it to be likely that the
8 Mercedes was travelling at this speed, but if the mark
9 was from the Mercedes, it confirms that it was certainly
10 not travelling faster than that as it entered the
11 tunnel."
12 A. Yes, I agree.
13 Q. So if this is not a critical tyre mark, with the tyre
14 running outside the geometry of the steering and
15 moving/slipping sideways, we have to look for another
16 reason why this mark might have been caused, don't we?
17 A. If it is not a critical speed mark -- if it is not
18 a true critical speed mark, then yes, we do.
19 Q. Given that there does not seem to be any difference in
20 speed between the speed at which the Mercedes entered
21 the tunnel and the likely speed at which this first mark
22 was made, we are not looking for speed as a cause of
23 this first mark, are we?
24 A. It cannot be discounted.
25 Q. It did not increase in speed, did it?

138

1 A. No, it won't. It cannot increase in speed.
2 Q. It would only be an increase in speed beyond the
3 entrance mark which would have contributed to any
4 subcritical mark, would it not?
5 A. The degree of steering regardless of the speed --
6 the degree of steering is also a factor that must come
7 in.
8 Q. But look at the degree of steering. This is a very
9 modest, moderate radius of steering; isn't it,
10 132/134-metre radius?
11 A. No, I do not agree.
12 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: I think the time has come when we
13 really ought to have our break, Mr Croxford, so we will
14 resume in quarter of an hour.
15 (3.20 pm)
16 (A short break )
17 (3.33 pm)
18 (Jury present)
19 MR CROXFORD: Sergeant, I just wanted to finish this point
20 on the joint statement that you and your colleague,
21 Mr Jennings, had made with Dr Searle here on
22 2nd October. Do you have it in front of you?
23 A. I do.
24 Q. It is probably easiest if you have it.
25 Sir, I am still in paragraph 6.2.

139

1 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
2 MR CROXFORD: I just want to finish this point on the single
3 tyre mark and what you have agreed and what we can
4 understand from what you have agreed.
5 In 6.2, picking up the second sentence, I have read
6 to you already:
7 "If the single tyre mark were a critical speed mark,
8 no other forces acting on the Mercedes signify a speed
9 of about 80 miles per hour."
10 That is what you agreed in October; correct?
11 A. Indeed.
12 Q. You and your colleagues did not consider it likely that
13 the Mercedes was travelling at that speed; correct?
14 A. Yes indeed.
15 Q. If it was from the Mercedes -- and you think it was from
16 the Mercedes, don't you?
17 A. I do.
18 Q. -- then it confirms that it was certainly not travelling
19 faster than that as it entered the tunnel.
20 A. Indeed.
21 Q. "A calculation of the speed based upon the double tyre
22 marks, a best estimate of 63 plus or minus 6 miles per
23 hour, approximately the same speed at impact."
24 Yes?
25 A. Yes.

140

1 Q. "So as the single mark finished only 7 metres before the
2 double mark started, there would be no distance to
3 reduce speed significantly even if braking were being
4 applied."
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. So one can deduce from that the single speed that
7 the car was travelling at about, 63 plus or minus
8 6 miles per hour at the time the single mark was made?
9 A. Yes, sorry, would you repeat that again?
10 Q. You have agreed in your joint statement that the best
11 estimate for the double tyre marks is 63 miles per hour
12 plus or minus 6.
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. That as the single mark finished only 7 metres before
15 the double mark started, there would be no distance to
16 reduce speed significantly, even if braking were being
17 applied.
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. That is what you have agreed. So one can understand
20 from that that when the single mark was made, the likely
21 speed of the Mercedes was in the order of 63, plus or
22 minus 6 miles per hour --
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- and, accordingly, below that critical figure of
25 80 miles per hour when you would expect a critical speed

141

1 mark?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. You went on with your experts to agree this, did you
4 not, that in your opinion alternative reasons exist to
5 explain the open curvature of the single swerve mark,
6 possibly acting in combination? There were two.
7 "The mark may be a subcritical tyre mark. That is
8 without striations and made at a lesser speed."
9 A. Yes, we did.
10 Q. And secondly:
11 "If there had been a right to left contact force
12 upon the Mercedes whilst making the tyre mark, that
13 would cause the mark to have a more open curvature."
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Now, let's try to put that in to English, if I may. You
16 have agreed already that there are no marks whatsoever
17 before that first tyre mark.
18 A. Yes, that is true.
19 Q. There is no evidence whatsoever to show the Mercedes
20 making any exaggerated or serious swerving movement
21 before that first tyre mark.
22 A. I do not agree.
23 Q. Well, there is no evidence on the road, is there?
24 A. I think there is.
25 Q. Any marks?

142

1 A. It is the shape of that first curved tyre mark.
2 Q. Well, let me ask you about the shape of the first
3 tyre mark.
4 The shape, you want to try to track it back
5 following its shape, do you, to say that it gets closer
6 to the central line at about 10 metres from the entry to
7 the tunnel?
8 A. No, not at all.
9 Q. Well, you tell me what you want to do with it.
10 A. I do not want to do anything with it. I want to leave
11 it exactly where it is and exactly how it is depicted in
12 the plan. The tyre mark is -- this tyre mark is a very
13 open "C" shape. It indicates that the vehicle that made
14 it, the Mercedes, came from the right, steered to
15 the left. That is why I think that there is evidence
16 that the Mercedes moved to the left before this
17 tyre mark started to be made.
18 Q. The curve on that single mark is one consistent curve;
19 isn't it?
20 A. It has been measured as one consistent curve, yes.
21 Q. You have shown it on your plan as one consistent curve.
22 A. Indeed. It curves in and out.
23 Q. When you say "in", that means the Mercedes is turning to
24 the right?
25 A. No, sorry, it is turning left and then to the right; in

143

1 to the left, out to the right.
2 Q. No marks on the road before the start of the single
3 mark?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. Of course, if the Mercedes had been travelling along in
6 the middle of that left-hand lane and another vehicle,
7 a Fiat, had, for whatever reason, drifted over into that
8 left-hand lane and nudged -- the two vehicles had come
9 together with the Fiat going left -- that nudge would be
10 enough, wouldn't it, to create a subcritical mark of
11 this type?
12 A. It could.
13 Q. You in chief said something about the damage to the
14 Mercedes not showing damage consistent with a Fiat
15 moving across.
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. What damage to the Mercedes are you describing that
18 would be inconsistent with the Fiat moving across?
19 A. This would be the two pictures of the front right wing
20 of the Mercedes that are at the back of my reports, on
21 pages 100 and 101. That is [INQ0001598] and [INQ0001599].
22 Q. Thank you very much, Sergeant.
23 While Mr Foley finds that --
24 A. I believe these figures have been distributed this
25 morning.

144

1 Q. So this is figure 18 in the bundle. What is it about
2 this photograph of the wing of Mercedes from which you
3 can tell that the Fiat did not drift over into the
4 left-hand lane?
5 A. I think it is obvious, looking at these pictures, that
6 there is no damage from the outside of this wing towards
7 the centre of the car. These are longitudinal marks,
8 little more than rub marks where it has come into
9 contact with the Fiat.
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. The piece of wing that we can see at the front that is
12 bent inwards is as a consequence of the impact with
13 the pillar. As the Mercedes has contracted with
14 the pillar, both of the front wings have been pulled in
15 towards the centre of the car, so that is why that
16 deformation is there. But there is nothing that I can
17 see there that gives me any cause to think that the Fiat
18 came into the side of the Mercedes with any degree of
19 significance.
20 Q. I am not suggesting there was a degree of significance,
21 Sergeant. What you have described, and effectively
22 I think also what you have agreed with the experts, is
23 that the Mercedes and the Fiat were travelling in
24 essentially parallel to one another; correct?
25 A. I am sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were

145

1 suggesting that the Fiat moved into the side of the
2 Mercedes.
3 Q. I am just trying to inquire into your suggestion that
4 that could not have happened. These two cars were
5 travelling westward on the expressway.
6 A. Yes, indeed.
7 Q. When they came together, they were almost still parallel
8 with one another; there was a 17-centimetre overlap,
9 correct?
10 A. Yes, indeed.
11 Q. But they were not going into one another so much as
12 rubbing along together in essentially the same
13 direction, within 1, 2, 3 degrees, something of that
14 sort?
15 A. Something of that order. There has to be, they have to
16 be, because there is not enough room to be able to make
17 the vehicle change direction significantly in that sort
18 of way.
19 Q. Now such a coming together of vehicles essentially in
20 parallel with one another could have happened, absent
21 the first tyre mark, anywhere over the two lanes, could
22 it not?
23 A. Yes, indeed.
24 Q. The very fact that there was such a coming together with
25 modest damage to that wing, as we see on figure 18, does

146

1 not tell you anything about whereabouts in the two lanes
2 the coming together occurred, does it?
3 A. I agree.
4 Q. Next please, you were asked by Mr Hilliard some
5 questions about the use of the Fiat to cause
6 a collision, but I think this is the position, isn't it?
7 You and the other experts are agreed, paragraph 8.6,
8 that there is nothing that reconstruction can do to
9 assist in determining why the Fiat occupied the position
10 it did, whatever that position on the road might have
11 been.
12 A. That is perfectly correct.
13 Q. And there is nothing that reconstruction can assist with
14 to decide whether or not, for example, the driver of the
15 Fiat lost his concentration and control and simply
16 meandered or wandered into the wrong lane, first of all?
17 A. That possibility cannot be discounted.
18 Q. You just happen to think that, from the debris, you
19 prefer another interpretation. Is that right?
20 A. I do prefer another interpretation, but it is not solely
21 on the debris. It is necessary to take everything into
22 consideration.
23 Q. All right. Just before I move to the debris, which
24 I will do almost immediately, Sergeant Read, the absence
25 of any marks before this first tyre mark, the making of

147

1 a tyre mark at a speed in the mid-60s or thereabouts,
2 well below the critical tyre mark threshold, and the
3 very open curvature -- there is hardly any steering,
4 there is no severe steering movement -- that is all very
5 consistent with some little nudge/sideways movement from
6 another vehicle applied to that Mercedes, isn't it?
7 A. It could be.
8 Q. All right. Let's look at the other things. I would
9 like to ask you now something about debris.
10 Now, this is right, is it not? Neither you nor
11 Mr Jennings from TRL had yourselves tried to carry out
12 any tests to ascertain any information about debris
13 throw?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. It was only when Dr Searle came on the scene and he put
16 forward what I think is called rather grandly
17 a "protocol", meaning simply a scheme --
18 A. Indeed.
19 Q. -- for carrying out some tests that you agreed that that
20 could be done?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. As you have told Mr Hilliard already, it was done and
23 produced some useful results.
24 A. Yes, it did.
25 Q. Now in those tests, as you have explained already,

148

1 effectively a hammer mechanism was set up over the rear
2 left-hand light structure of a Fiat Uno.
3 A. That is correct.
4 Q. And as the hammer was released, a Mercedes 280 was
5 running alongside it, the two vehicles at the chosen
6 representative speeds.
7 A. Yes, I think the Mercedes was involved in the first two
8 from memory and we discounted it in the other four.
9 Q. One of the things that you agreed as a result of those
10 tests was this, was it not? Do you have your joint
11 report?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. I wonder if you could look at that.
14 Sir, you will want to know that this is
15 paragraph 3.2, which we have not heard of so far.
16 LORD JUSTICE SCOTT BAKER: Thank you.
17 MR CROXFORD: You, the experts, agreed this, didn't you,
18 that with a configuration where the Mercedes travels up
19 the side of the Fiat -- and that, of course, is the
20 configuration that you think happened -- wherever it
21 happened on the road, what happened in the Alma Tunnel
22 was the Mercedes travelling up the side of the Fiat,
23 Mr Read?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. "With a configuration where the Mercedes travels up the

149

1 side of the Fiat, the fragments which have been released
2 on first contact are constrained on two sides."
3 A. Yes, they are.
4 Q. It is perfectly obvious the minute one stands back to
5 think about it, isn't it?
6 A. Absolutely.
7 Q. Because on one side is the Mercedes; on the second side
8 is the Fiat.
9 A. That is correct.
10 Q. And fragments obviously cannot travel through the metal
11 of either car.
12 A. That is perfectly true.
13 Q. So you also agreed:
14 " ... constrained on two sides. Ahead of them is
15 the rear of the Fiat, so that in general their forward
16 speed cannot be greater than the speed of the Fiat."
17 A. That is correct.
18 Q. Looking at the general for the moment, it is possible
19 that in a collision, where a faster vehicle collides
20 with a slower vehicle, that initially the faster vehicle
21 will cause debris to travel faster than the slow-moving
22 vehicle was travelling --
23 A. Yes, that is possible.
24 Q. -- because it could impart energy to the released
25 particles?

150

1 A. Yes, absolutely. The parts of the faster-moving vehicle
2 will of course be travelling at the same speed of it.
3 Q. Of course, they will, and the Coroner, I think,
4 clarified that with you today. But of course the moment
5 they are released and begin to fall to earth, they will
6 lose momentum.
7 A. Absolutely.
8 Q. You also agreed that to the left of the fragments is
9 the side of the Mercedes, so that, in general,
10 the fragments cannot move to the left of their point of
11 release.
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. "With this caveat, while the occasional fragment might
14 escape those constraints, plainly most of the fragments
15 will fall in the quadrant behind the Fiat and to
16 the right of the Mercedes."
17 A. That is true.
18 Q. I think you have also agreed that on the evidence that
19 you have seen from the available materials -- and, sir,
20 you will want to see this, I think, in the joint
21 statement, paragraph 4.1 -- you have agreed that the
22 evidence shows that there was only one contact between
23 the Mercedes and the Fiat.
24 A. Yes, we do.
25 Q. Now, just pausing for a moment, the only place

151

1 the debris can fall, therefore, is behind the Uno and to
2 the right of the Mercedes?
3 A. Yes, that is true.
4 Q. You carried out those joint tests that you have
5 described using the hammer and so forth. Those tests
6 measured lengthwise distribution of debris, did they
7 not?
8 A. Yes, they did.
9 Q. The tests did not measure widthwise distribution of
10 debris?
11 A. No, the tests were not designed to do that. We did
12 actually take those measurements, but that was not
13 the intention of the tests.
14 Q. When a 2-tonne Mercedes -- and that is the sort of mass
15 of this 280 S class, isn't it, something over
16 2 tonnes --
17 A. Absolutely.
18 Q. -- when that has a glancing contact with a Fiat
19 weighing, what, 800/900 kilos --
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. -- and the 2-tonne Mercedes is travelling in the order
22 of 30 miles per hour faster than the Fiat -- correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. -- your best estimate is that the relative speed of the
25 Mercedes was 30 miles per hour faster than the Fiat?

152

1 A. Yes, that is agreed.
2 Q. So when a 2-tonne Mercedes travelling at a relative
3 speed of 30 miles per hour collides with a Fiat, there
4 is likely to be the passing of a considerable amount of
5 energy from the Mercedes into the Fiat.
6 A. Well, that depends on the degree of contact.
7 Q. But on the small area of contact which you, the experts,
8 have identified, a 17-centimetre overlap where
9 effectively just the light clusters on respective
10 vehicles came together -- correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- nonetheless, 2 tonnes at 30 miles per hour, when
13 there is a release from the Fiat's light cluster, there
14 will be particles which pick up some momentum from
15 the Mercedes?
16 A. Probably, yes. We cannot be sure --
17 Q. Of course you can't.
18 A. -- but I suspect that that is probably the case.
19 Q. And some of those will ping against the Mercedes?
20 A. Quite likely.
21 Q. And ping over to the right?
22 A. Very possibly.
23 Q. Some of them will ping against the Uno that is in front
24 of them?
25 A. Yes, again.

153

1 Q. And some will, by dint of the force of impact itself,
2 simply be thrown off to the right because that is the
3 only place to go?
4 A. That will have an element of dependence on the direction
5 of the impact.
6 Q. This road, of course, the Alma Tunnel -- the jury have
7 been there -- there is a camber, isn't there, from
8 centre to edge?
9 A. Yes, there is.
10 Q. If I rolled a ball bearing along the road, it would tend
11 to run to the right if it was going in a westward
12 direction.
13 A. That is very true.
14 Q. So putting it fairly, with the sort of impact that you
15 are describing between the faster-moving Mercedes and
16 this Fiat, your inspection would be that debris from
17 the Fiat would drop first of all to the right of the
18 Mercedes?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. It would tend to follow the camber of the road and run
21 off to the right as well, wouldn't it?
22 A. I have difficulty agreeing with that. Your analogy with
23 the ball bearing is perfectly true. The fragments, of
24 course, are not perfectly circular or spherical. So any
25 influence that the gradient or the camber that is

154

1 there -- and I accept that there is a camber, but it is
2 not a great camber -- any influence from that would have
3 very little, if any, effect on jagged-edged objects
4 rolling down a relatively gentle incline.
5 Q. I think Mr Hilliard asked you questions, the effect of
6 your answers being that there is some suggestion that
7 some of the debris which was bagged up and has been
8 inspected appears to have been abraded. Is that right?
9 A. That is correct, yes.
10 Q. And abrasion in these circumstances would probably mean
11 being run over by vehicle tyres; is that right?
12 A. Yes, I think that is why we see the debris in relatively
13 neat groups. I think the fragments probably became
14 detached from the vehicles in reasonably large pieces
15 and then were run over by presumably the emergency
16 vehicles that we have seen in the photographs, which
17 accounts for the quite compact neat groups of smaller
18 pieces that we see in the photographs.
19 Q. The position surely is this, putting it fairly,
20 Sergeant Read: given the constraints that I have just
21 been putting to you about this circumstance of the
22 collision, the fact that you find debris somewhere in
23 the right-hand lane tells you nothing reliable about
24 where the collision took place relative to left- or
25 right-hand lanes.

155

1 A. I disagree.
2 Q. When you say that there is debris here that assists you
3 in coming to this conclusion, can I understand next
4 precisely which debris you mean? In those photographs
5 again, do we look at figure 4 [INQ0001576]?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. Which debris do you mean?
8 A. It is the debris which is marked "unmarked lens debris".
9 Q. I can see an arrow. Is that it?
10 A. If you look carefully, sir, you can see some deposits of
11 red material which has been crushed into the road
12 surface.
13 Q. That is red material crushed into the road surface, is
14 it?
15 A. That would be my interpretation of it, yes.
16 Q. Just at the end of the arrow?
17 A. At the end of arrow and very slightly to the right.
18 Q. What about a bit further on, that sort of white thing?
19 A. That appears to be a wrapper of some description,
20 a plastic bag. I do not know.
21 Q. What about just to the right, between the two and to
22 the right? Is there not a little red blob and a white
23 blob? Is this part of your debris?
24 A. I cannot see where you are indicating, sir.
25 Q. Perhaps Mr Foley can help me. There we are, those two

156

1 bits.
2 A. I am not sure about the white bit, but I have
3 highlighted, for my own benefit, the darker-coloured bit
4 as possibly being a piece of debris that has not been
5 collected.
6 Q. I see. You did not highlight it in your report, of
7 course, to Lord Stevens, did you, just this little bit
8 marked here as "unmarked lens debris"?
9 A. No, I did not because we were looking primarily -- if we
10 are going to look for debris throw, I believe that
11 the best evidence is to find the first piece of debris.
12 So I have highlighted what I could find to be the first
13 piece of debris into the underpass or the first piece of
14 debris at all, in fact.
15 Q. That means that for that reason you have disregarded the
16 debris in the left gutter, have you?
17 A. It is not a case of disregarding it. It is a case of it
18 not being quite as important as the first piece.
19 Q. Now I want to ask you some questions about your opinion,
20 used by Lord Stevens, no doubt, in your December report.
21 Your conclusion in December of last year was that
22 the first point of impact was probably 10 to 20 metres
23 east of the underpass entrance. Is that right?
24 A. That is correct, yes.
25 Q. Do I understand in summary that you, in December of last

157

1 year, reached that conclusion by a combination of you
2 identifying that material on the screen there at the end
3 of your arrow as being lens debris first of all?
4 Correct?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Lens debris which you were satisfied must have come from
7 this collision between Mercedes and Fiat Uno?
8 A. Yes, I was and still am.
9 Q. And you applied to that some information from a German
10 study; is that right?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Now the German study, there is only one, isn't there?
13 A. The German study I referred to actually refers to
14 another study as well. So there is only one, but it is
15 referenced to two.
16 Q. But the other study does not deal with the same issue of
17 lens throw, does it?
18 A. I believe it does.
19 Q. Did you go and get a copy of it?
20 A. I did.
21 Q. The other study?
22 A. No, I did not.
23 Q. Can I just try to understand what it is that you had
24 when you relied upon this German material,
25 Sergeant Read? First of all, in your December report,

158

1 you referred to a German website, didn't you?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. And you referred to a study published on that website;
4 correct?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. At that stage, in December of last year, did you rely
7 only upon what was shown to you on the web?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You went and got, did you, a copy of the study which
10 the website referred to?
11 A. Oh, I beg your pardon, yes, only what was available on
12 the internet, sorry.
13 Q. What was available on the internet you described as
14 being something called "Ruffle and Becke", is that
15 right?
16 A. That is correct.
17 Q. You now understand that "Ruffle" was not the name of the
18 contributor to this. Is that also right?
19 A. Yes, it is.
20 Q. It is Krause.
21 A. Yes, it is.
22 Q. Which apparently, in German, means "rough" or "ruffle".
23 You went and got a print-off of what was on the website.
24 A. Yes, I did.
25 Q. The website was a site called "Colliseum"?

159

1 A. Yes.
2 Q. What is "Colliseum"?
3 A. It is a repository, I suppose you would call it, of
4 scientific papers.
5 Q. One of your regular sources?
6 A. I would not say "regular", but it is one that has been
7 used.
8 Q. How often do you use it?
9 A. Well, the answer really is as often as is necessary if
10 I am looking for something in particular. Once/twice,
11 maybe more times per year. I have really given it no
12 thought.
13 Q. What did you know about the status of the work that you
14 found on the web, whether it was good science or
15 indifferent science or poor science?
16 A. I assumed it was good --
17 Q. All right.
18 A. -- because I had been directed there by my colleague,
19 Mr Jennings.
20 Q. Ah. Thank you. That answers one of my other questions.
21 Do you have a copy of whatever it was that you
22 printed off from the web there?
23 A. Yes, I do.
24 MR CROXFORD: Sir, I do not know if your counsel have