A man accused of seriously injuring his friend by crashing his bike drunk insisted to a Supreme Court jury that it was actually his friend riding.

The jury in Shawn Gibson's trial has previously heard that he initially told his mother, stepfather and the Police he was riding himself at the time of the crash in Southampton on April 13, 2008.

However, he later changed his story, saying his friend Daniel Wilks was actually riding. He claimed he lied in the first instance to protect Mr. Wilks, his friend of 15 years.

He repeated that account when he gave evidence in his own defence yesterday. In answer to questions from defence lawyer Larry Mussenden, he described how Mr. Wilks had been upset and drinking heavily earlier that day due to a fight with his girlfriend and had repeatedly gone to the bathroom.

"One particular time he came out and he wasn't his normal self... he was jittery, just more hyperactive and I noticed he had some stuff on his face and I told him he had to get it together and clean himself up," said Gibson, 35.

He said he let Mr. Wilks, 27, ride his 135cc Yamaha Sniper later that day after they'd spent the evening drinking in South Shore bars, because Mr. Wilks had been asking all day.

The bike slid out and hit a car coming in the opposite direction just east of the Southampton Rangers ground on South Road at 10.30 p.m.

Gibson told the jury his friend was travelling at 55 to 60 KPH at the time and said the road was "damp to slick, not soaking wet". Explaining why he originally told people he was the one riding, Gibson replied: "I said you know what, it's going to cause a major issue for Daniel because of certain things that had transpired through the day, which I know what the outcome might be for him because of the things that transpired."

He did not elaborate on what he meant.

Mr. Wilks, a painter from Hamilton, spent three weeks in a coma after the collision. He suffered fractures to his ribs, collar bone, spine and shin bone, shattered his thigh bone and suffered two punctured lungs.

In evidence earlier this week, he insisted Gibson was riding at the time of the crash, at speeds in the region of 110 KPH.

Gibson, a former Marine and Ports worker from Southampton, sustained two hairline fractures to his right ankle, a broken nose and pelvis and chipped bones in his pelvis, plus an injured left knee and road rash.

He denies causing grievous bodily harm by driving impaired, driving under the influence and failing to comply with a demand for a breath test

Cross-examining Gibson, prosecutor Takiyah Burgess pointed out inconsistencies between an interview he gave to the Police and his evidence to the court yesterday.

"When the topic of who was the rider comes up, your voice is dropping and you're mumbling because you were riding," she alleged, accusing him of telling repeated lies.

"I disagree," replied Gibson.

In her closing speech, reflecting on the inconsistencies in Gibson's accounts, Ms Burgess asked the jury: "How can you believe someone that's telling the truth and then lying, and telling the truth and then lying?"

But defence lawyer Mr. Mussenden pointed out that the Police did not call in an expert collision investigator to examine all the possible causes of the crash. Neither did they investigate the theory that Mr. Wilks could have been riding.

He said if the prosecution had got an expert to investigate: "They could have gone out the next day and sorted these things out for us, and not leave the jury to speculate at all."

Urging the jury not to accept the Crown's case, and to acquit Gibson on all three counts, Mr. Mussenden pointed out: "It doesn't take alcohol to deck out on a bike."

The jury is due to consider the verdict on Monday.