The jury hearing the case of a British expat accused of killing a Bermudian by dangerous driving heard his lawyer urge them to clear his name because they can't be sure how the crash happened.

But the prosecutor said expert evidence against Luke Armstrong, 25, shows he did cause the collision that left one dead and two injured when his heavy truck veered onto the wrong side of the road and hit their car.

The case is based on circumstantial evidence, since there are no independent eyewitnesses to what took place, according to prosecutor Cindy Clarke. Car passengers Evelyn Rewan and Honest Masawi were both knocked unconscious in the collision and cannot remember what happened.

Mr. Masawi, 46, a Zimbabwean living in Pembroke, managed to escape from the wreck before it burst into flames. He also helped rescue Ms Rewan, 30, from Warwick, who suffered a broken neck and multiple injuries.

They were being driven home by Winston (Yogi) Burrows, 44, who was at the wheel of Ms Rewan's car because she'd had too much to drink during a night out. He was killed by the impact of the steering wheel in the collision and was trapped inside the car when it exploded into a fireball.

Prosecutor Ms Clarke told the jury during her closing speech that they should accept evidence from two expert Police collision investigators.

Sergeant Emmerson Carrington and Inspector Philip Lewis both reached the conclusion that Armstrong's pickup truck which was heading west was in the eastbound lane Mr. Burrows was travelling in when the collision occurred on South Road, Warwick, around 1.30 a.m on April 5.

They reached that conclusion due to gouge marks in Mr. Burrows' lane caused when the undercarriage of the vehicles dipped in the collision. They also told the jury that scrape marks on the road surface beginning in Mr. Burrows' lane were caused by the exposed steering arm of the truck after its wheel was knocked off in the collision. And, they said, physical damage to both vehicles and debris in the road supported their opinions.

Ms Clarke told the seven-man five-woman jury: "You should be satisfied so you feel sure that this collision happened in the eastbound lane."

However, defence lawyer Saul Froomkin QC pointed out how under cross-examination from him both collision experts admitted they could only speak to the area on the road that the "maximum impact" between the vehicles took place. They could not state the exact point that the vehicles initially hit each other or what speed they were travelling at.

"The crucial issue is where was that initial contact? Was it on the eastern or western part of the road? You cannot guess. You cannot speculate. You have to be sure," the defence lawyer stressed. "How can you be sure when you have no evidence that it took place there?"

Mr. Froomkin told the jury that even if Armstrong had inadvertently veered over the centre line as he headed towards a bend in the road, the evidence indicated he was only slightly over the line and that is not enough to constitute dangerous driving in law.

The court has heard from the Police officer who arrested Armstrong at his home in Beaming Hill, Southampton in the hours after the collision that he smelled of alcohol and his eyes were glazed. According to the Police officer, he admitted he'd had four or five beers before the collision. However, no evidence regarding any breath test result has been shared with the jury. Armstrong exercised his right not to take the witness stand to give evidence in his own defence.

Mr. Burrows, the jury has heard, was more than twice the drink-drive limit and had taken cocaine. Mr. Froomkin said: "I don't wish to speak ill of the deceased but I have to. There's no evidence of any braking, any veering to avoid the collision. So if he (Armstrong) was inches over the centre line, should he be expected to know that a drunken driver who was coked up was coming towards him?"

The case has heard undisputed evidence that Mr. Burrows suffered from a paralysed left hand for the past 12 years and the car he was driving had a manual stick shift. Mr. Masawi said in his evidence that Mr. Burrows' driving was "fine" but Mr. Froomkin pointed out that Mr. Masawi also consumed alcohol that night.

Armstrong denies causing death by dangerous driving, two counts of causing injury by dangerous driving and driving without a valid licence. However, Mr. Froomkin offered no defence evidence to contradict prosecution evidence from a TCD official that Armstrong was only licensed to drive a private car and a light truck not the heavy truck he was driving that night.

Puisne Judge Norma Wade-Miller is due to sum up the case and send the jury out to deliberate today.