A man found guilty of driving without due care following a collision in which a motorcyclist was injured has had his conviction quashed on appeal.

Patrick Francis was driving west on Middle Road in Southampton in February 2019 when the accident happened.

At his trial, Mr Francis testified that he stopped to make a right turn onto Pine Tree Avenue and gave way to an approaching car heading east.

But he proceeded to make the turn after the car slowed down and signalled for him to make the manoeuvre.

Mr Francis said that, as he did so, a motorcycle also heading east overtook the stationary car and collided with Mr Francis’ van.

Mr Francis said the motorcycle rider, Kristy Woods, crossed into the westbound lane when overtaking, lost control of her bike after applying her brakes, and slid into his vehicle.

He said that a white scrape mark in the westbound lane supported his testimony.

But Ms Woods, who suffered a fractured knee in the accident, claimed that there was no other vehicle on the road at the time of the accident and that Mr Francis pulled across into her lane before she had time to stop.

In her judgment, trial magistrate Maxanne Anderson dismissed Mr Francis’ evidence and that of a work colleague who arrived on the scene shortly after.

She said that she found Ms Woods, along with a police officer who was called to the scene, to be “credible and reliable witnesses”, adding that she accepted their version of events over the defendant’s.

She found Mr Francis guilty of causing grievous bodily harm by driving without due care, banned him from driving one class of vehicle for 18 months, and fined him $1,500.

But on appeal, lawyers for Mr Francis said that Ms Anderson made no reference to the white scrape mark in her ruling.

She also failed to provide any reason why she “preferred” the evidence of Ms Woods over Mr Francis and his colleague.

In a written ruling handed down this week, Puisne Judge Shade Subair Williams allowed the appeal.

She wrote: “The senior magistrate’s findings on the disputed material facts, which were advanced by the defence, ought to have been outlined and explained in the judgment.

“For example, the learned magistrate did not state whether she found the evidence of the scratch mark in the west bound lane to be supportive of the defence case or incapable of injecting doubt into the case for the prosecution and why.

“On another example relied on by the appellant, the senior magistrate did not disclose any reasons for rejecting Mr Francis’ evidence about his verbal exchange with the on-scene officer after the accident had occurred.

“In the absence of a finding that the appellant was being untruthful or was lacking in credibility as a witness, the question as to why the magistrate wholly rejected the evidence called by the defence remains unanswered.

“In this case, it was particularly important for the learned trial magistrate to outline the reasons for the conclusions she drew because, on the material facts, the Crown’s case starkly contrasted the defence case which, if not rejected, would have likely resulted in an acquittal.

“The question for determination was not whether one side of the case was preferred over the other, but whether the Crown’s case was believed beyond reasonable doubt after having assessed all of the relevant evidence for both sides.

“So the senior magistrate’s concluding statement that the prosecution proved the charge beyond reasonable could not and did not cure the defective approach used to assess the evidence.

“On these grounds, I find the appeal should be allowed.”

• 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.