A 20- year old Monea labourer has been found guilty, by a jury sitting at Dungannon Crown Court, of causing the death of his friend, Adrian James Cassidy, by dangerous driving on 2nd February last year.

Gavin Francis Magee from Drumbeggan Road, Tullycreevy, Monea had pleaded 'not guilty' to the charge of dangerous driving causing the death of Adrian James Cassidy on 2nd February 2006 on a public road, namely the Shankill Road, Monea.

Following a four day trial at Dungannon Courthouse, and after hearing all the evidence in the case, the jury retired shortly before lunchtime on Thursday to consider their verdict.

After deliberating for over two hours, the jury were unable to reach a unanimous verdict but when directed by His Honour, Judge Grant that a majority verdict would, at that stage, be acceptable they returned a guilty verdict by a majority of ten to two.

The defendant was released on bail on his own recognisance of £500 and with an independent surety of £2,000 to be sentenced on 8th November 2007. During this time a pre-sentence report is to be compiled as well as medical reports.

Defence barrister Des Fahy told the court that, since the accident, the defendant had been in contact with a therapist and he suggested that a psychologist's report might prove helpful when sentencing.

At the start of the defence case, the jury were told that the defendant would not be giving evidence in this trial, and Judge Grant told the jury that this was the defendant's right.

The defence then called Dr Denis Woods, a consultant engineer who, the jury heard, examined the Toyota Corolla Twin-cam car involved in this accident on 2nd April last year.

Dr Woods noted that there were two areas where the underlying fibre cord was exposed and one area where the undercore was exposed.

Dr Woods told the jury that the condition of these tyres would only be obvious under 'careful inspection', whereby someone would kneel down and look at the tyres. He gave evidence that the car's mudguards and mud flaps would cover much of the tyres.

'The condition of the tyres, with the exposed wires, would not have cause the loss of control of the car', he told the court.

Dr Woods explained that after the car had gone through the dip, the car moved down on the suspension, compressing the springs and producing a 'higher vertical force'.

The witness stated that, despite the poor condition of the tyres, this higher vertical force (and higher pressure) would provide more traction/ grip and, in his opinion, the theory that the car veered off the road because of the poor condition of the tyres could not be correct because of this.

Dr Wood said there was a danger of a blow-out with such a tyre and he described it as 'potentially unsafe', but he said he wouldn't use the word 'dangerous'.

The prosecution put it to the witness that the strength of the tyres had been compromised and that, as Mr Quinn said, the tyres would 'flex and ripple' meaning that in the dip there would be less surface area in contact with the road and, therefore, less traction or a loss of traction.

But, to this Dr Woods disagreed, stating that when the contact area decreased the contact pressure increased.

The last witness called by the defence was Dr Ghareeb, a consultant surgeon at the Erne Hospital in Enniskillen. He treated the defendant, who arrived at the Erne Hospital on 2nd February 2006, and described his condition as 'critical', with injuries including a fracture at the base of the skull. He confirmed to the court that a loss of memory following severe head injuries was 'very common'.

The jury then heard closing statements from both the defence and the prosecution highlighting what they deemed to be the important issues they had to consider.

The prosecution counsel read out Article 11 of the legislation to the jury, namely, 'a person is also deemed to be driving dangerously (as in Art.9) if it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving a vehicle in its current condition would be dangerous'.

The prosecution case, the jury was told, had two major elements - the condition of the rear tyres and the fact the car only had one seat.

The prosecution maintained that the defendant did drive dangerously, that he knew of the defects with the car and that these factors combined to cause the death of Adrian James Cassidy.

"If you agree, then you can be sure the defendant is guilty', prosecution counsel concluded.

The defence barrister told the court that if they couldn't be sure what caused the accident, then they must find the defendant 'not guilty'.

Defence counsel submitted that the most important aspect was what caused the accident which killed Adrian Cassidy, and he further submitted there was no direct evidence of what caused this accident. The defendant wasn't in a position to give any meaningful evidence. It wasn't suggested that the defendant was driving dangerously, rather the suggestion was the state of the car was dangerous.

"It would be wrong to convict for having a tyre that was dangerous if it was nothing to do with the accident," the defence continued.

"Are you sure that the defendant was responsible for causing the death of Adrian James Cassidy even though he didn't drive dangerously / carelessly," he concluded.

Speaking afterwards, Inspector Ian Kennedy, the PSNI's investigator of KSI's (killed and seriously injured) road traffic collisions in Fermanagh said the verdict of the jury at Dungannon Crown Court into the death of Adrian Cassidy 'is considered by some as a landmark decision'.

"In this case, it was not the manner of driving that was under scrutiny, but a question of establishing whether using a vehicle that was in a poor condition could also be considered dangerous. The decision sends out a clear message that the courts will take a strong view in relation to persons who are prepared to take onto the roads vehicles that may be considered dangerous due to their condition and, also that a jury will be prepared to convict.

"However, irrespective of the guilty verdict in this case, there are no winners when the proceedings are in relation to a road death. Court results cannot bring Adrian back to his family and the outcome of the court is only another step for the Cassidy family.