A van driver accused of killing a teacher during a roadside confrontation has been cleared of all charges after a jury accepted that the fatal collision was an accident rather than a deliberate act.
Andrew Robson, 33, of Fold Green, Chadderton, faced allegations of murder and manslaughter following the death of Paul Bowles, a 50-year-old teaching assistant, after an altercation at the Elk Mill roundabout in Oldham, Greater Manchester.
According to the prosecution, the two men became involved in a heated exchange while driving on Broadway. Mr. Bowles was travelling with his 19-year-old daughter in a Nissan Qashqai when Robson’s white Ford Transit van allegedly followed too closely. Words were exchanged, and both drivers eventually stopped at a set of traffic lights, where a fight broke out.
The Crown’s case was that, after returning to his vehicle, Robson deliberately turned his van towards Mr. Bowles, knocking him to the ground before driving away. Members of the public rushed to help, but despite their efforts Mr. Bowles died at the scene from severe head injuries.
Evidence and Expert Testimony
A key witness for the prosecution was a road collision reconstruction expert, who analysed tyre marks and vehicle positioning. The expert stated that the marks at the scene could be consistent with a phenomenon known as “torque steer,” which occurs when uneven acceleration causes a vehicle to pull unexpectedly to one side.
The Crown argued that regardless of mechanical factors, Robson had “ample opportunity” to see Mr. Bowles and avoid him. A teenage eyewitness, whose identity could not be disclosed, told the court there was “no way” the collision was accidental, asserting that Robson had intentionally driven towards the victim.
The defence, however, relied heavily on the same technical evidence to argue that the incident was the result of an involuntary steering movement, not intent. Robson maintained throughout that he neither saw Mr. Bowles nor realised there had been a collision.
Defence Submissions
Represented by Simon Csoka KC, Robson’s defence contended that he acted in panic and confusion following a violent assault. Mr. Csoka told jurors his client had been “repeatedly punched to the head” moments before the collision and that such stress and disorientation could easily lead to a loss of vehicle control.
Counsel drew attention to the prosecution’s own expert report, which described the tyre marks as being consistent with torque steer. He described this as a “classic accident” resulting from over-acceleration in suboptimal conditions. The defence further argued that the prosecution had been “highly selective” in the way it relied on the evidence, urging jurors to consider the expert findings objectively.
Mr. Csoka reminded the court that the burden of proof rested entirely with the Crown. “The defendant is not required to prove his innocence,” he said. “
"And if you think there is a possibility this was an accident then you would acquit the defendant on the counts of murder and manslaughter."
Prosecution Submissions
For the Crown, Gordon Cole KC maintained that Robson “lost his temper” during the confrontation and acted out of anger rather than fear. He argued that the act of steering towards Mr. Bowles amounted to an intent to cause at least serious harm, sufficient to establish liability for murder or manslaughter.
Verdict and Aftermath
Robson was unanimously cleared of both murder and manslaughter by a jury.
After deliberating at Manchester’s Minshull Street Crown Court, the jury unanimously found Robson not guilty of both murder and manslaughter. The verdict followed a three-week trial. When the decision was announced, Robson’s family and supporters in the public gallery were reported to have reacted with applause and relief.
Forensic Evidence and Its Impact
This case illustrates how expert witness evidence can play a decisive role in criminal litigation. The forensic reconstruction of the collision provided the central point of contention between prosecution and defence. Both sides relied on the same data to support opposing conclusions — one asserting deliberate control, the other asserting mechanical malfunction.
The interpretation of “torque steer” became critical. The expert’s findings demonstrated that even subtle vehicle mechanics could introduce doubt as to a driver’s intent. Where intent is the dividing line between murder, manslaughter, and accident, such testimony can fundamentally alter the jury’s perception of culpability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_collision_reconstruction
https://witnessdirectory.com/signup.php
