A truck driver involved in a deadly collision with AFL reporter Sam Landsberger refused a blood test after the accident because he did not like needles.
James Latchford, 45, on Tuesday won a legal fight to get his licence reinstated after it was suspended by police following the August 20 collision.
Police allege Latchford, from Seaford, crashed into Landsberger, who was crossing the road at the intersection of Bridge Road and Church Street in Richmond.
Melbourne Magistrates’ Court heard Latchford underwent a roadside alcohol and drug test at the scene and tested negative to both.
Melbourne Highway Patrol officers then repeatedly asked him to provide a blood sample – a standard procedure for drivers involved in serious collisions.
The court heard Latchford questioned why it was necessary and told police he did not like needles.
“Why do I have to do that as well?” he is alleged to said to police. “I don’t want to give a sample. I just don’t like needles, mate.”
The earlier drug test could only detect methamphetamine and cannabis, and not other illicit substances, which is why a blood test was required, the court heard.
Latchford was charged with refusing to provide a blood sample and was immediately given a notice banning him from driving.
Latchford’s defence barrister Michael Pena-Rees told the court the licence suspension had had a “significant impact” on his client who was now unable to work as a truck driver and could not drive his teenage daughter around.
“It is like a dark cloud hanging over his head,” his lawyer said, adding that the court case would not be resolved for many months and it had taken a mental toll on his client.
The prosecutor argued the legislation was “black and white”, outlining a blood test must be taken following a fatal road accident and that police were right to immediately suspend his licence.
He also argued there were no exceptional circumstances in Latchford’s case.
“Nothing is unique, nothing is special about it,” he said. “Everyone who goes through a process like this has the same risk of losing their job.”
The court heard nearly two months on from the crash, Latchford was still facing no charges related to his driving on the day.
Pena-Rees told the court witnesses had submitted statements that Latchford was driving “slowly and carefully” when the crash happened, and it would have been impossible for him to see Landsberger.
In giving her decision, magistrate Belinda Franjic said a combination of factors meant Latchford’s case was exceptional.
She noted his licence had been revoked when it was not yet clear if he was at fault.
She also accepted that Latchford could lose income and had a largely “unblemished” driving record, besides a drink-driving charge, where he was more than twice the legal limit, more than a decade ago.
Franjic said it would be “somewhat draconian” to continue the suppression of his licence when there was no evidence of careless driving on the day of the fatal crash.
“I am satisfied that Mr Latchford does not meet an unacceptable risk to road safety,” she said.
Landsberger was an award-winning AFL and cricket writer for the Herald Sun, where he had worked for 14 years. He was also a contributor for Fox Footy, appearing on the Midweek Tackle program.
QouthTheCorvus on
Never got the big thing about needles. They’re not that bad.
I’m sure it would have been explained to him on the day that it was either blood test or suspension. When something is so easily verifiable, refusal to give evidence has to be seen negatively.
hawthorne00 on
*had a largely “unblemished” driving record, besides a drink-driving charge, where he was more than twice the legal limit, more than a decade ago.*
That’s a pretty fucken big blemish.
numericalusername on
Yeah, I don’t buy that for some reason
EnternalPunshine on
I have a medical condition – short sightedness. I can’t drive without glasses, that’s the rules.
If you have a needle phobia and want to drive a heavy vehicle you should be required to treat that condition or at least do your best to do so if you run someone over and they die.
If this guy went the hospital and freaked out and just couldn’t sit through a blood test then maybe I’d say ok, he tried. (Not sure it would be admissible but they could probably finger prick him for enough blood for a drug test).
But to flatly refuse? And then the judge gives it that ‘yeah your record is fine’ when he has a DUI. Spare me!
toomanysurcharges on
Surely he could have been distracted while the needle goes in.
> *You’ll just feel a tiny prick…*
BeLakorHawk on
Tested negative to alcohol, meth and cannabis.
Maybe he wasn’t overly at fault.
Surely sometimes it’s the pedestrian or bike riders fault. Not always the heavier vehicle.
7 Comments
A truck driver involved in a deadly collision with AFL reporter Sam Landsberger refused a blood test after the accident because he did not like needles.
James Latchford, 45, on Tuesday won a legal fight to get his licence reinstated after it was suspended by police following the August 20 collision.
Police allege Latchford, from Seaford, crashed into Landsberger, who was crossing the road at the intersection of Bridge Road and Church Street in Richmond.
Melbourne Magistrates’ Court heard Latchford underwent a roadside alcohol and drug test at the scene and tested negative to both.
Melbourne Highway Patrol officers then repeatedly asked him to provide a blood sample – a standard procedure for drivers involved in serious collisions.
The court heard Latchford questioned why it was necessary and told police he did not like needles.
“Why do I have to do that as well?” he is alleged to said to police. “I don’t want to give a sample. I just don’t like needles, mate.”
The earlier drug test could only detect methamphetamine and cannabis, and not other illicit substances, which is why a blood test was required, the court heard.
Latchford was charged with refusing to provide a blood sample and was immediately given a notice banning him from driving.
Latchford’s defence barrister Michael Pena-Rees told the court the licence suspension had had a “significant impact” on his client who was now unable to work as a truck driver and could not drive his teenage daughter around.
“It is like a dark cloud hanging over his head,” his lawyer said, adding that the court case would not be resolved for many months and it had taken a mental toll on his client.
The prosecutor argued the legislation was “black and white”, outlining a blood test must be taken following a fatal road accident and that police were right to immediately suspend his licence.
He also argued there were no exceptional circumstances in Latchford’s case.
“Nothing is unique, nothing is special about it,” he said. “Everyone who goes through a process like this has the same risk of losing their job.”
The court heard nearly two months on from the crash, Latchford was still facing no charges related to his driving on the day.
Pena-Rees told the court witnesses had submitted statements that Latchford was driving “slowly and carefully” when the crash happened, and it would have been impossible for him to see Landsberger.
In giving her decision, magistrate Belinda Franjic said a combination of factors meant Latchford’s case was exceptional.
She noted his licence had been revoked when it was not yet clear if he was at fault.
She also accepted that Latchford could lose income and had a largely “unblemished” driving record, besides a drink-driving charge, where he was more than twice the legal limit, more than a decade ago.
Franjic said it would be “somewhat draconian” to continue the suppression of his licence when there was no evidence of careless driving on the day of the fatal crash.
“I am satisfied that Mr Latchford does not meet an unacceptable risk to road safety,” she said.
Landsberger was an award-winning AFL and cricket writer for the Herald Sun, where he had worked for 14 years. He was also a contributor for Fox Footy, appearing on the Midweek Tackle program.
Never got the big thing about needles. They’re not that bad.
I’m sure it would have been explained to him on the day that it was either blood test or suspension. When something is so easily verifiable, refusal to give evidence has to be seen negatively.
*had a largely “unblemished” driving record, besides a drink-driving charge, where he was more than twice the legal limit, more than a decade ago.*
That’s a pretty fucken big blemish.
Yeah, I don’t buy that for some reason
I have a medical condition – short sightedness. I can’t drive without glasses, that’s the rules.
If you have a needle phobia and want to drive a heavy vehicle you should be required to treat that condition or at least do your best to do so if you run someone over and they die.
If this guy went the hospital and freaked out and just couldn’t sit through a blood test then maybe I’d say ok, he tried. (Not sure it would be admissible but they could probably finger prick him for enough blood for a drug test).
But to flatly refuse? And then the judge gives it that ‘yeah your record is fine’ when he has a DUI. Spare me!
Surely he could have been distracted while the needle goes in.
> *You’ll just feel a tiny prick…*
Tested negative to alcohol, meth and cannabis.
Maybe he wasn’t overly at fault.
Surely sometimes it’s the pedestrian or bike riders fault. Not always the heavier vehicle.
Do we know Landsgerger’s blood toxicity?