June 2015 – Letter from a private client to Dave following completion of his report – ‘Just a quick note to thank you for your report. It was very professional, I am most grateful to you. Your services really do deserve to be recommended’.
July 2015 – Following an investigation in relation to a Death by Careless driving, the Defendant was acquitted after the production of a joint report with the police expert, in which the police officer agreed our evidence and the judge dismissed the case midway through the prosecution case. The judge asked the prosecutor, ‘if your own expert agrees with the defence expert, how can a jury be sure of guilt?‘
September 2015 – Following acquittal of a driver in a case of causing death by dangerous driving, thank you card received from the driver and his partner thanking us for ‘all of your time and hard work you put into collecting evidence for our case. Because of you being so good at your job we can finally put this case behind us‘.
September 2015 – Case of Death by Dangerous driving – solicitor emailed us to thank us for our hard work and ‘putting some long hours in over the 2 week trial‘.
October 2015 – Case of Death by Dangerous driving – Barrister wrote ‘Dear Mark and Peter, Thank you for your hard work in this case, it assisted me considerably, especially in mitigation. Client was very relieved and grateful for our assistance in his case‘.
December 2017 – Civil case following instructions from NewLaw, Scotland (McIntosh v Aviva) and acting on behalf of the Pursuer. Pete was giving evidence for almost 4 days in a motorcycle v LGV case. The Sheriff found 100% in favour of the motorcyclist (no independent witnesses). Judgement from the Sheriff was ‘Mr Davey presented his evidence in a careful and considered manner. He demonstrated a clear understanding of the issues…. He applied his considerable knowledge and experience to the information presented to him. His position did not change despite Mr Macpherson’s best efforts in cross-examination. I found him to be an impressive and well-balanced witness’.
January 2018 – Civil case at The Royal Courts of Justice, Car v Pedestrian (Bruma v Hassan). Acting on behalf of the Claimant, Pete provided expert evidence to the hearing. Judgement found 80% in favour of the Claimant. The judgement stated, ‘I found both experts equally impressive. Mr Davey was the more confident of the two. Mr Medd, for the defendants, challenged his objectivity, and sought to characterise part of his evidence as advocacy. In my judgment Mr Davey’s responses to such criticisms in cross-examination were measured, calm and convincing. On balance, where there were differences between the two experts I found the reasoning of Mr Davey more persuasive’.
Review provided by Road Traffic Barrister based in Manchester –
I have worked professionally with and alongside experts from Viewpoint on many cases in recent years. Pete Davey and his team are wonderful. They are all personable, extremely articulate – simplifying difficult technical evidence for the lay person, be it Magistrate or Juror – and very persuasive! Both in writing and in person. Their reports read particularly well. Issues are identified and analysed concisely and with brevity. They have a great approach with opposition experts and typically secure realistic concessions in joint reports. When called for, their expertise shines through in Court. They are my go to accident reconstruction experts in all driving cases. I highly recommend them – and regularly do to other professional clients.
April 2019 – Following a case in Guildford where the Defendant was acquitted by a jury of Death by Careless Driving in under 7 minutes, the Defendant’s mother emailed Carl Millar (Millar Solicitors, Manchester)… ‘I cannot express my gratitude for your guidance and support throughout Dominic’s case.
Every time we heard from you, you reassured us and calmed us during the most stressful time my family has been through.
I am so grateful you took Dominic’s case, that you worked with John- please pass our absolute gratitude to him for the work he has done, and to Pete Davey for his work.
I felt we all rushed off today and I never really got to say how much your work and efforts as a team – John and Peter included has meant to us. For my husband to cry is a big thing.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart. You are diamonds’
January 2020 – Following a trial in Chester Crown Court, the Defendant was charged with Death by Dangerous Driving and sought assistance from Dave Loat, asking him to prepare a full forensic reconstruction report. Defendant was acquitted of Death by Dangerous driving and he and partner wife messaged the following…
‘The fabulous Dave Loat has been working on a court case. We will never be able to thank Dave enough for all his hard work and support. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude. He was truly amazing and his hugs were very much appreciated. We honestly can’t speak highly enough of Dave, he’s a true professional, who is nothing but thorough!’
May 2023 – Following a civil trial involving 3 reconstruction experts at Manchester Civil Justice Centre, HHJ Sephton provided his written judgement (see Rowbotton vs Teasdale), in which he commented,
‘In my judgment, the most convincing expert witness was Mr Davey. He undertook a laser scan of the scene which all of the experts recognised was likely to provide the most accurate representation of the locus. Mr Davey carefully analysed the evidence and presented a fair and, to me, convincing account of the collision in his written and oral evidence. In giving his evidence, he was firm but not inflexible. He was an impressive witness. My conclusions about what happened are largely informed by his opinion’
September 2024 – Following another civil trial at Manchester Civil Justice Centre in which HHJ Sephton again oversaw proceedings. An important issue in this case was the visibility for the driver when conducting a narrow left-hand turn. HHJ found fully in favour of the Defendant and concluded the driver could not have seen the pedestrian – agreeing with Mr Davey. Counsel for the Defendant commented, ‘the hedge had been cut back by the time Mr Davey attended and the decision thus taken to rely on the police laser scan taken on the day as the laser scan he carried out would have been misleading as to the sightlines. Further, Mr Davey measured the Defendant’s eyeline within an exemplar vehicle and mapped that position into the laser scan model – to give as accurate a view as possible of the Defendant’s view, whilst still recognising that no such replication can be entirely accurate and explaining why. Although there were many other issues, success / failure in the case came down to core issues of expert evidence – to the extent that it was not necessary for the Judge to deal in with many of the other issues.‘