A jury was entitled to agree with an expert witness who found that a teenager was riding in her lane when she was struck in a fatal collision, according to the Court of Appeal.

Terrance Walker was sentenced to three years behind bars last year after he was found guilty of causing the death of 18-year-old Jen-Naya Simmons by careless driving in a 2018 traffic collision.

Marc Daniels, counsel for Walker, argued in the Court of Appeal that contradictory evidence offered by expert witnesses should have left the court with “lurking doubts” about the safety of the conviction.

While Glenn Luben, a US-based investigator, found that the collision took place in Ms Simmons’ lane, Michael Prime, a British-based investigator, said Ms Simmons was more likely on the wrong side of the centre line when she was struck.

However, in a written decision, Court of Appeal judge Sir Anthony Smellie said that it was a matter for the jury to decide which of the expert evidence they believed.

“On careful analysis, it cannot be said that there was any unreasonableness or irrationality in the majority of the jury’s acceptance of Mr Luben’s testimony,” Sir Anthony wrote.

“There were sound bases upon which they could have preferred his evidence over that, in particular, of Mr Pride.

“And this was so notwithstanding the evidence of Jen-Naya’s blood/alcohol level being over the legal limit, the presence of Molly found by the forensic toxicology report and her relative inexperience as a rider, simply because the jury would have seen for themselves on the CCTV footage that, in keeping with Jada Simmons-Trott’s evidence, Jen-Naya was riding competently at the material times.”

During the Supreme Court trial, a jury heard that in the early hours of July 15, 2018, Ms Simmons was on her way home on a motorbike from a house party in Warwick when the fatal collision occurred on North Shore Road in Hamilton Parish.

Ms Simmons-Trott, a friend of Ms Simmons, said that she had seen a grey or white van moving west in the area partially in the eastbound lane moments before she lost track of her friend.

Another witness said she had seen a silver van travelling west turn off its lights moments before she came across the scene of the collision.

The witness said she later saw the same van ride through the scene of the fatal collision travelling in the opposite direction, noting that the vehicle had four people inside.

CCTV footage on North Shore Road showed a silver van approaching the crash site near the time of the collision, and the vehicle was found to be registered to Walker.

The same vehicle was seen later travelling in the opposite direction on the same road.

Walker told police later that he was the usual driver of the vehicle, and that the van had been involved in a “fender bender thing”, but denied that it had been involved in an accident.

The court also heard that Walker performed as a DJ, and was promoted as a performer at an event at Bailey’s Bay Cricket Club on the night of the collision.

Walker was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving by a majority verdict and sentenced to three years behind bars.

However, he launched an appeal against both his conviction and his sentence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, stating that it was up to the jury whose evidence they accepted or rejected.

The court also upheld the three year sentence, stating that he correctly identified the case as one where Walker had “intermediate culpability” and considered the circumstances of the case.

“The aggravating and mitigating circumstances of the case must also be assessed and we agree with the judge’s conclusion that the former far outweigh the latter in this case, one in which, after a fully contested trial, the Appellant can get no credit for admission of guilt or expression of true remorse,” Sir Anthony wrote.

“Especially egregious here, was what the judge described as the Appellant’s ‘irresponsible behaviour at the time of the offence’, his callous failure to stop to lend assistance after the collision even after he had turned his van around and returned to the scene.

“It is clear that he had no concern for his victim, his only concern was to evade detection for his offence and this evasive conduct was, as the judge also found ‘taken to the next level by repairing the damage caused to his van by the collision with Jen-Naya and modifying its appearance by installing the roof rack’.”

The judge added that while a term of imprisonment was appropriate in this case, not every case of causing death by careless driving would necessarily require incarceration.

“The offending course of driving could involve the most momentary lapse of attention but causing the same tragic outcome of loss of life,” Sir Anthony added.

“In such a case, if fault is admitted and genuine remorse shown, a non-custodial dispensation could remain within the proper exercise of discretion by the Court when sentencing.

“Everything will, indeed, depend upon the circumstances of the case.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers