Fife driver Liam McWatt has been acquitted of causing a couple’s death in a horrific crash in Glenrothes.
A jury returned a not proven verdict following a week-long trial at the High Court in Edinburgh.
Mr McWatt, 24, denied a charge of causing the death of Harry and Shirley Taggerty by dangerous driving in Glenrothes in July 2019.
It was alleged he used a mobile phone while driving along the A911 Leslie Road at excessive speed, before crossing into oncoming traffic – causing other cars to brake – and mounting a grass verge and accelerating into the couple.
Mr and Mrs Taggerty, who had been walking along a pavement, holding hands and laughing together, died of their injuries a short time after.
Mr McWatt, who believes he blacked out moments before the crash, drove into a tree stump and flipped his car down a slope.
Relatives of Mr and Mrs Taggerty broke down in tears when the not proven verdict was announced.
The trial
The trial heard how Mr and Mrs Taggerty were thrown about 25ft into the air then fell down the embankment after being struck at around 10.10am on July 13 2019.
Mr McWatt’s overturned Ford Fiesta was seen lying nearby.
When PC Joseph Archer approached Mr McWatt, he was “speaking fine,” talking about going on holiday and looking for his phone.
He told the officer he may have blacked out.
Giving evidence on Friday, Mr McWatt told the jury: “I woke up and I was upside down in my car and I thought maybe I had been pushed off the road.
“I was so confused.”
Mr McWatt, of Leslie Mains, Leslie, escaped with minor injuries, including a swollen jaw and cuts to his head and forearm.
Speaking about when he found out two people had died in the crash, he said: “I couldn’t believe it.
“I was so shook up and distraught.”
Closing speeches
The case hinged on whether jurors believed Mr McWatt’s claims he lost consciousness before the crash.
Advocate depute Alan Cameron, prosecuting, said during his closing speech: “The accused does not have any pre-existing condition and there’s nothing in his medical history that means he could have predicted losing consciousness.”
The court heard Mr McWatt had received and responded to a text from his then girlfriend seconds before the collision.
She asked if her purse was in his car. He replied: “No.”
Mr Cameron said that message was sent at 10.09am and 54 seconds.
A call to 112 was automatically made via the car’s infotainment system about 15 seconds after point of impact, at 10.10am and 46 seconds.
Mr Cameron said it was a “small window” in which to lose and seemingly regain consciousness.
“It is not credible to suggest that – after receiving the text from his girlfriend – he did not look around the car and not give his full attention to the road, before he responded,” said Mr Cameron.
He said Mr McWatt was lying when he told the trial he sent the text while stopped at traffic lights.
The advocate depute suggested Mr McWatt may have simply panicked after losing control of his car.
And he may have suffered “retrograde amnesia” as a result of concussion, which made him forget about what had happened, Mr Cameron said.
Faultline
Advocate Michael Meehan KC, defending, told jurors: “The Crown will paint Mr McWatt as a man with a heart of stone and nerves of steel who tried to cover his tracks.
“But Mr McWatt was distraught when he learned that two people had died.
“The crown say that was a fake reaction, but (witness) Dr Nilesh Champaneria says it was right. He was distraught.”
Mr Meehan said the car accelerating from 45mph to 58mph in five seconds before the crash suggested his client may have slumped forward and hit the accelerator.
“The advocate depute is papering over the fundamental fault-line at the centre of the Crown case,” he said, suggesting that to deliberately accelerate towards pedestrians was akin to a terrorist act.
Jurors took less than two hours to return their majority verdict.
Before the decision was announced, Lord Scott paid tribute to members of Mr and Mrs Taggerty’s family.
“I am grateful to you for the way you have conducted yourselves for what must have been a very difficult time,” he said.
The family declined to speak following the verdict.
“There’s nothing to say at this stage,” one relative said.
There’s more local court content at our dedicated page, or join us on Facebook.
