The lawyer for a man involved in a fatal crash near Stanhope last year has raised questions about whether her client was properly cautioned before speaking to police after the crash.
Clement Thomas Cheri, 25, of Jan Juc, is charged with dangerous driving causing the death of a 73-year-old Shepparton woman in May last year.
He appeared in Bendigo Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday, February 7, for a contest mention where his solicitor Kate Freshwater requested to be able to cross-examine three witnesses in a contested committal hearing.
In a prosecution summary tendered to the court, police allege Mr Cheri was the driver of a small truck involved in a crash with another vehicle on the Midland Hwy at Carag Carag about noon on May 26, 2023.
According to the summary, the driver of the car the Shepparton woman was a passenger in was driving east along a straight stretch of the road when she saw the truck driven by Mr Cheri allegedly coming in the opposite direction completely off the road driving on the grass verge of the southern side of the highway.
Police claim as he approached a drainage channel culvert, the rear of Mr Cheri’s truck began to rotate across the road into the path of the other vehicle, hitting it and killing the passenger.
In an interview at the police station, Mr Cheri chose not to make any comments.
The committal will centre on what Mr Cheri said to police at the scene and whether police had properly cautioned him that anything he said could be used in evidence.
Ms Freshwater applied to cross-examine both police officers about any conversation they had with Mr Cheri before their body-worn camera was turned on and whether he understood what was being said to him.
Mr Cherie holds dual French and Australian citizenship and has been living in Australia since about August 2022.
In court on Wednesday, his matter was interpreted by a French-speaking interpreter.
“It (any prior conversation) is relevant to the inadmissibility of questions and whether there was discussions of his language issues,” Ms Freshwater said.
The magistrate granted leave for one of the officers — who had supplied a written statement — to be cross-examined at court.
“I will allow you to cross-examine on any admissions made by the accused and the circumstances in which they were made,” the magistrate said.
However, the second officer is on extended sick leave without a return date, and the magistrate asked the prosecution to attempt to get a statement from him but did not grant the defence application to cross-examine the officer without a statement.
The matter will return to court in June for a one-day contested committal hearing.