A driver suffered a sudden unintended acceleration and they suspected a fault with the car had caused their collision. Following a Police investigation, the driver was charged. Shortly after, I was instructed to inspect the vehicle and I was provided with ‘all’ the evidence. I inspected the vehicle, prepared my report and turned up for Court on day 1 of the trial.

Moments before the trial was due to start, in a private room, the driver said words that I never want to hear again “But my car doesn’t have a handbrake button, it’s an automatic handbrake”.  

I have to admit, my heart sank, not because I had any issue with my findings or the report I had prepared, but because in considering ‘all’ the evidence, I had overlooked one key area, the drivers familiarity with the car.

In all their interviews, the driver had indicated they were familiar with the car and how it worked, so I assumed there was no wiggle room in that statement. And here I fell foul of my own rules (well I stole them actually), which are Assume nothing, Believe nobody and Check everything.

As the driver continued talking, they said they had experienced issues with their “automatic” handbrake not disengaging. As I sat there, the penny dropped, there was no problem with the “automatic” handbrake,  if anything I was more convinced than ever that there was nothing wrong with the car. The issue was the drivers understanding of how their car actually worked.

Instances like this are thankfully rare, but they are a timely reminder that even when you think you have ‘all’ the evidence, it isn’t over until its over, and new evidence can materialise at any time.



Although I would be much happier if we could limit the last minute drop ins for the foreseeable.